Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24)

On Oct 14, 2011, at 13:15 , Dan Brickley wrote:

> On 14 October 2011 11:56, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com> wrote:
>> Not only that, it's actually useful.
>> 
>> There's only two (common) syntactic ways of expressing sequences/arrays/vectors, rdf:Seq and RDF Collections.
>> 
>> Both are pretty cumbersome, ugly, and arguably "broken" from some perspective, but as we don't have a valid replacement I don't think we should remove either one at the moment.
> 
> 
> Yup, sorry I forgot XMP briefly; but yes that + RSS1 are significant,
> even if "old fashioned". XMP in particular is very hard to update
> because the files are all out there in the wild. I'm not sure we gain
> much by making some of our biggest and earliest backers look retro.
> 
> Doing ordering in a binary relationship structure like RDF, especially
> with all the open-worldism and data mixing, is always going to be a
> challenge. We'd do better issueing friendly guidelines and examples
> and tutorials, than issuing grand proclamations about how people's
> REC-following data is broken / obsolete.

+1

Ivan


> 
> cheers,
> 
> Dan
> 


----
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