<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Phil Dawes' Stuff - Latest Comments in can we remove the need for ordered collections?</title><link>http://phildawesstuff.disqus.com/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Mar 2005 04:57:23 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: can we remove the need for ordered collections?</title><link>http://www.phildawes.net/blog/2005/02/28/replacing-ordered-collections/#comment-2753016</link><description>Jimmy Cerra Writes:&lt;br&gt;&lt;em&gt;Yet, it is the directed graph intepretation which makes RDF more useful for some types of data modeling than plain-old XML.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Definately, but retaining statement order doesn't mean ditching the directed-graph interpretation. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;em&gt; it is too late to change RDF significantly.  Too many applications already depend on the current interpretation.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Of course you're right, but it's interesting to explore the idea.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Phil Dawes</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 01 Mar 2005 04:57:23 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: can we remove the need for ordered collections?</title><link>http://www.phildawes.net/blog/2005/02/28/replacing-ordered-collections/#comment-2753015</link><description>I don't think I agree.  Right now RDF is to directed graphs is like what S-expressions are to lists.  If the order of statements was significant then it would drifting a lot further away from that ideal.  Yet, it is the directed graph intepretation which makes RDF more useful for some types of data modeling than plain-old XML.  Besides, it is too late to change RDF significantly.  Too many applications already depend on the current interpretation.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Jimmy Cerra</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 28 Feb 2005 18:45:34 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>