- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 14:20:44 +0000
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>
- Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.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 UTC