ISSUE-24: Should we deprecate RDF containers (Alt, Bag, Seq)?

Deprecate Containers

Should we deprecate RDF containers (Alt, Bag, Seq)?

State:
CLOSED
Product:
Cleanup tasks
Raised by:
Sandro Hawke
Opened on:
2011-04-07
Description:
The RDF 1999 and 2004 Recommendations include vocabulary and syntax
(in RDF/XML) for RDF "containers", Alt, Bag, and Seq.

Although these features are being used, such as in RSS 1.0, some experts
advise data providers to avoid them. They have no syntactic support
in RDFa or Turtle. Should the WG align with this advice and say these
features are only to be used for backward compatibility? (That is,
RDF/XML parsers must continue to support the syntax, and libraries
should allow applications to use the features to interoperate with
legacy RDF systems.)

Note that RDF "Containers" (rdf:Alt, rdf:Bag, rdf:Seq) are distinct
from RDF "Collections" (rdf:List). This issue is about Containers
only.

http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-primer-20040210/#containers
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/RDF_Core_Work_Items#Data_Model_Issues

Related Actions Items:
No related actions
Related emails:
  1. Re: 'Simple Lists' (was Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24)) (from phayes@ihmc.us on 2011-10-19)
  2. Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) (from pierre-antoine@champin.net on 2011-10-19)
  3. Re: 'Simple Lists' (was Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24)) (from steve.harris@garlik.com on 2011-10-19)
  4. Re: 'Simple Lists' (was Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24)) (from alexhall@revelytix.com on 2011-10-19)
  5. Re: 'Simple Lists' (was Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24)) (from danbri@danbri.org on 2011-10-19)
  6. Re: 'Simple Lists' (was Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24)) (from steve.harris@garlik.com on 2011-10-19)
  7. Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) (from andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com on 2011-10-19)
  8. Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) (from pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr on 2011-10-19)
  9. Re: 'Simple Lists' (was Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24)) (from richard@cyganiak.de on 2011-10-17)
  10. Re: 'Simple Lists' (was Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24)) (from danbri@danbri.org on 2011-10-17)
  11. Re: 'Simple Lists' (was Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24)) (from sandro@w3.org on 2011-10-17)
  12. Re: 'Simple Lists' (was Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24)) (from richard@cyganiak.de on 2011-10-17)
  13. Re: 'Simple Lists' (was Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24)) (from steve.harris@garlik.com on 2011-10-17)
  14. Re: 'Simple Lists' (was Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24)) (from sandro@w3.org on 2011-10-17)
  15. Re: 'Simple Lists' (was Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24)) (from andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com on 2011-10-17)
  16. Re: 'Simple Lists' (was Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24)) (from steve.harris@garlik.com on 2011-10-17)
  17. Re: 'Simple Lists' (was Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24)) (from sandro@w3.org on 2011-10-16)
  18. Re: 'Simple Lists' (was Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24)) (from sandro@w3.org on 2011-10-16)
  19. Re: 'Simple Lists' (was Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24)) (from phayes@ihmc.us on 2011-10-16)
  20. Re: 'Simple Lists' (was Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24)) (from phayes@ihmc.us on 2011-10-16)
  21. Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) (from phayes@ihmc.us on 2011-10-16)
  22. Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) (from phayes@ihmc.us on 2011-10-16)
  23. Re: 'Simple Lists' (was Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24)) (from steve.harris@garlik.com on 2011-10-16)
  24. Re: 'Simple Lists' (was Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24)) (from sandro@w3.org on 2011-10-16)
  25. Re: 'Simple Lists' (was Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24)) (from steve.harris@garlik.com on 2011-10-16)
  26. Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) (from andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com on 2011-10-16)
  27. Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) (from id@talis.com on 2011-10-15)
  28. Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) (from danbri2011@danbri.org on 2011-10-15)
  29. Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) (from id@talis.com on 2011-10-15)
  30. Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) (from id@talis.com on 2011-10-15)
  31. Re: 'Simple Lists' (was Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24)) (from ian.davis@talis.com on 2011-10-15)
  32. 'Simple Lists' (was Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24)) (from sandro@w3.org on 2011-10-15)
  33. Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) (from steve.harris@garlik.com on 2011-10-15)
  34. Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) (from andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com on 2011-10-15)
  35. Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) (from andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com on 2011-10-15)
  36. Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) (from jeremy@topquadrant.com on 2011-10-15)
  37. Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) (from sandro@w3.org on 2011-10-15)
  38. Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) (from danbri@danbri.org on 2011-10-15)
  39. Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) (from ivan@w3.org on 2011-10-15)
  40. Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) (from danbri@danbri.org on 2011-10-15)
  41. Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) (from ivan@w3.org on 2011-10-15)
  42. Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) (from sandro@w3.org on 2011-10-14)
  43. Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) (from ivan@w3.org on 2011-10-14)
  44. Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) (from danbri@danbri.org on 2011-10-14)
  45. Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) (from steve.harris@garlik.com on 2011-10-14)
  46. Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) (from ivan@w3.org on 2011-10-14)
  47. ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2011-10-13)
  48. Re: RDF-ISSUE-24 (Deprecate Containers): Should we deprecate RDF containers (Alt, Bag, Seq)? [Cleanup tasks] (from steve.harris@garlik.com on 2011-04-11)
  49. Re: RDF-ISSUE-24 (Deprecate Containers): Should we deprecate RDF containers (Alt, Bag, Seq)? [Cleanup tasks] (from steve.harris@garlik.com on 2011-04-11)
  50. Re: RDF-ISSUE-24 (Deprecate Containers): Should we deprecate RDF containers (Alt, Bag, Seq)? [Cleanup tasks] (from sandro@w3.org on 2011-04-08)
  51. Re: RDF-ISSUE-24 (Deprecate Containers): Should we deprecate RDF containers (Alt, Bag, Seq)? [Cleanup tasks] (from sandro@w3.org on 2011-04-08)
  52. Re: RDF-ISSUE-24 (Deprecate Containers): Should we deprecate RDF containers (Alt, Bag, Seq)? [Cleanup tasks] (from nathan@webr3.org on 2011-04-08)
  53. Re: RDF-ISSUE-24 (Deprecate Containers): Should we deprecate RDF containers (Alt, Bag, Seq)? [Cleanup tasks] (from danbri@danbri.org on 2011-04-08)
  54. Re: RDF-ISSUE-24 (Deprecate Containers): Should we deprecate RDF containers (Alt, Bag, Seq)? [Cleanup tasks] (from ivan@w3.org on 2011-04-08)
  55. Re: RDF-ISSUE-24 (Deprecate Containers): Should we deprecate RDF containers (Alt, Bag, Seq)? [Cleanup tasks] (from ivan@w3.org on 2011-04-08)
  56. Re: RDF-ISSUE-24 (Deprecate Containers): Should we deprecate RDF containers (Alt, Bag, Seq)? [Cleanup tasks] (from richard@cyganiak.de on 2011-04-08)
  57. Re: RDF-ISSUE-24 (Deprecate Containers): Should we deprecate RDF containers (Alt, Bag, Seq)? [Cleanup tasks] (from steve.harris@garlik.com on 2011-04-08)
  58. Re: RDF-ISSUE-24 (Deprecate Containers): Should we deprecate RDF containers (Alt, Bag, Seq)? [Cleanup tasks] (from steve.harris@garlik.com on 2011-04-08)
  59. Re: RDF-ISSUE-24 (Deprecate Containers): Should we deprecate RDF containers (Alt, Bag, Seq)? [Cleanup tasks] (from danbri@danbri.org on 2011-04-08)
  60. Re: RDF-ISSUE-24 (Deprecate Containers): Should we deprecate RDF containers (Alt, Bag, Seq)? [Cleanup tasks] (from ivan@w3.org on 2011-04-08)
  61. RDF-ISSUE-24 (Deprecate Containers): Should we deprecate RDF containers (Alt, Bag, Seq)? [Cleanup tasks] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2011-04-07)

Related notes:

RESOLVED to mark rdf:Alt and rdf:Bag as archaic using the language at:
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/ArchaicFeatures

ISSUE-77 (http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/77) has been opened for rdf:Seq.

David Wood, 13 Oct 2011, 16:59:13

Display change log ATOM feed

Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, Chair, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Staff Contacts
Tracker: documentation, (configuration for this group), originally developed by Dean Jackson, is developed and maintained by the Systems Team <w3t-sys@w3.org>.
$Id: 24.html,v 1.1 2014-07-09 12:17:59 carine Exp $