- From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
- Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 14:50:07 +0100
- To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 14-12-13 12:32, Markus Lanthaler wrote: > On Saturday, December 14, 2013 10:52 AM, Pat Hayes wrote: >> Option 1 works for me. I like option 2 better but I also see that it >> would probably get too complicated to explain in a primer. >> >> I would prefer to also add a slightly stronger warning to option 1, >> something like this at the end of the paragraph: >> >> "Note however that RDF provides no way to convey this semantic >> assumption to other readers of the dataset." > > +1, I was just about to write the same. If we stick to option 1, I would > like to see "out-of-band knowledge" added to the sentence above or in a > separate one to make this crystal clear (yeah, it's basically the same but > nevertheless I think it will help people understanding this). OK. Suggest to extend Pat's formulation as follows: [[ Note however that RDF provides no way to convey this semantic assumption to other readers of the dataset. Those readers will need to rely on out-of-band knowledge to interpret the dataset in the intended way. ]] Guus > > > -- > Markus Lanthaler > @markuslanthaler > > > > >
Received on Saturday, 14 December 2013 13:50:39 UTC