W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: Draft response to Ian Davis' comment

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 21:26:50 +0000
Message-ID: <4D223F1A.9080500@epimorphics.com>
To: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>
CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
The terminology "RDF knowledge" has caused comment before.  It seems the 
terminology doesn't work for some people.  I wonder if there is a better 
way to express things here.  I think the confusion arises because:

1/ "RDF Knowledge" is terminology unique to http-rdf-update/ but it gets 
used in sections discussing other documents where the term is not used.

2/ This is a protocol document and protocols are about exchanging bytes 
and manipulating state.


We all ready have:
[[ http-rdf-update/ sec 8:
Graph IRIs identify RDF knowledge (an information resource)
]]
so why not use "information resource"? This is language used by AWWW and 
httpRange-14.

	Andy

On 31/12/10 16:04, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:
> See: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:ID-1
>
> -- Chime
>
>
> ===================================
>
> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
>
> Cleveland Clinic is ranked one of the top hospitals
> in America by U.S.News&  World Report (2009).
> Visit us online at http://www.clevelandclinic.org for
> a complete listing of our services, staff and
> locations.
>
>
> Confidentiality Note:  This message is intended for use
> only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed
> and may contain information that is privileged,
> confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable
> law.  If the reader of this message is not the intended
> recipient or the employee or agent responsible for
> delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If
> you have received this communication in error,  please
> contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in
> its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy.  Thank you.
>
>
Received on Monday, 3 January 2011 21:27:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:45 GMT