On 2012-05-25, at 12:28, Richard Cyganiak wrote: ... > Could we do this? To see how deep a change this wold require, I looked for uses of “resource” throughout the specs. > > • RDF Concepts doesn't really rely on the term besides defining it. > > • RDF Semantics mostly uses it in the form of the IRI rdfs:Resource. > > • RDF/XML has it all over the place due to the rdf:resource attribute. > > • Turtle almost doesn't use it. > > • SPARQL uses it quite a few times, but nothing too difficult to change. > > • RDF Schema uses it *very* heavily. > > • So does the old Primer. > > • OWL2 barely uses it, except in the RDF-based semantics and in the > RDF/XML rdf:resource attribute > > • URIs and IRIs are “Uniform/Internationalized Resource Identifiers”, so the > term implicitly creeps in wherever we talk about URIs and IRIs. > > • RDF is the Resource Description Framework… > > I don't know. Sounds like a difficult thing to do and tons of work. Anyone seriously thinks this would be a good idea? No. For me it's in the same area as "literals as subjects", nice idea, but just too disruptive. - Steve -- Steve Harris, CTO Garlik, a part of Experian 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK +44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93 Registered office: Landmark House, Experian Way, Nottingham, Notts, NG80 1ZZReceived on Friday, 25 May 2012 11:36:23 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:49 GMT