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

Re: Draft response to Ian Davis' comment

From: Alexandre Passant <alexandre.passant@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 18:19:13 +0000
Cc: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C0E9A398-6E77-4617-800B-997601957A85@deri.org>
To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>

On 11 Jan 2011, at 17:29, Steve Harris wrote:

> 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.

I'm also in favor of RDF content (or RDF data)

Alex.

> 
> - 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
> 
> 

--
Dr. Alexandre Passant
Digital Enterprise Research Institute
National University of Ireland, Galway
:me owl:sameAs <http://apassant.net/alex> .
Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2011 18:20:49 GMT

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