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

Re: Draft response to Ian Davis' comment

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 17:29:19 +0000
Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <19ECE42C-38F9-4B03-8971-F2E0E0B70849@garlik.com>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
On 2011-01-11, at 14:20, Axel Polleres wrote:

>> 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?

I think "RDF Knowledge" is a bad term, for all the reasons people have pointed out.

RDF content is better.

- Steve

-- 
Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2011 17:29:55 GMT

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