RDF-WG is thinking of downplaying containers (Bag, Alt Seq). Seq in
particular is causing some debate.
1/ People don't want existing data/systems labelled as using
"deprecated" or "archaic" features. Bad marketing.
2/ Lists are still hard to use so aren't a complete replacement for Seqs.
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Ordered
A lot of the debate is quite technical .. and wanders much further afield.
If you have a view (and you are not employed by a W3C member already on
the WG because your views should go via that route), please let this
list know.
Not having a view is quite alright. The vocabulary isn't going way -
it's how it's positioned that may change.
The RDF-WG is not chartered to make a real change, like putting
structure literals in as first-class elements of the RDF data model.
Andy
ASF rep on RDF-WG and SPARQL-WG.
