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: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 09:00:44 +0000
Message-ID: <4D22E1BC.60007@epimorphics.com>
To: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>
CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
>> We all ready have:
>> [[ http-rdf-update/ sec 8:
>> Graph IRIs identify RDF knowledge (an information resource)
>> ]]
>> so why not use "information resource"?
> Because the resources identified by the graph IRIs in this protocol
> manipulate RDF content, RDF content is distinct from other IRs by the manner
> in which they facilitate machine understandability (which is the whole point
> of the SW), and there is already a priori uncertainty about what the IRI of
> a named graph identifies.

Why not use the terminology "RDF content"?

Received on Tuesday, 4 January 2011 09:06:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:03 UTC