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

Re: Draft response to Ian Davis' comment

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 14:20:44 +0000
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <98CC482D-33AB-4E4C-BA30-A92494C4798C@deri.org>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>
> Why not use the terminology "RDF content"?


While not really recalling whether we had that discussed as an alternative before
(I remember we had some discussions back and forth before arriving at "RDF knowledge"), 
"RDF content" sounds like it could work... Opinions?

Axel

 
On 4 Jan 2011, at 09:00, Andy Seaborne wrote:

> >> 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"?
> 
>         Andy
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2011 14:22:18 GMT

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