Re: proposal to close ISSUE-77 (Re: [ALL} agenda telecon Oct 19)

I can certainly live with that. I would not mind labeling it as a compatibility feature, too, that sounds like a much more gentle term (public relation wise) than archaic.

Ivan

On Oct 19, 2011, at 02:44 , Sandro Hawke wrote:

> On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 21:05 +0200, Guus Schreiber wrote:
>> Maybe we should have resolved at the FTF to skip a week after all the 
>> hard work at the FTF, but we didn't, so here is the agenda:
>> 
>>   http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.10.19
>> 
>> I suggest a short meeting, basically reviewing the FTF minutes, with 
>> some reflections, plsy tackling two detailed issues.
> 
> The second of those is ISSUE-77.   To sum up the discussion on the
> mailing list, I think our best chance for consensus is on this
> resolution:
> 
> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-77 with a plan to keep rdf:Seq and RDF Collections
> as in 2004 (syntax, no semantics), but include non-normative text in one
> or more of our documents gently steering people toward best practices,
> which are (1) try to model without using either one, when feasible, and
> (2) if you need to use one, use RDF Collections structured so they can
> be serialized losslessly in Turtle using the "(...)" notation.
> 
> This proposal is trying to split the difference: some people (including
> me) think it would be better to say something stronger (I'd like to
> deprecate Seq, or at least label it merely a "compatibility feature");
> some people want something weaker (like do nothing).  My sense from what
> people have posted is that everyone can live with this middle ground.
> 
>   -- Sandro
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf