- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 17:03:06 +0100
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>, public-rdf-wg@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