W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > August 2012

Re: A rant about the terminology debate

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 17:03:06 +0100
Cc: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <236F2326-4D82-4686-AA46-329A67132258@garlik.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
On 2012-08-25, at 07:55, Ivan Herman wrote:
> 
> On Aug 24, 2012, at 22:00 , Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
> 
> [snip]
>> 
>> I'm 100% with Richard on this issue and I propose that we make the following resolution:
>> 1. if a term is normatively defined by RDF 1.0, we adopt it for RDF 1.1 without any change;
>> 2. if a term is normatively defined by SPARQL and we want to put the concept in RDF 1.1, we adopt it without any change;
>> 3. for all terms that do not have a normative definition yet in either RDF or SPARQL, we leave the discussion open to settle on a term.
>> 
> 
> 
> +1. No, +e^infinity
> 
> A terminological discussion is like a religious war: it may never end and it hurts everybody. 

+1

- Steve

-- 
Steve Harris, CTO
Garlik, a part of Experian
+44 7854 417 874  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93
Registered office: Landmark House, Experian Way, Nottingham, Notts, NG80 1ZZ
Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2012 16:03:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:06 UTC