W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > January 2009

Re: [SKOS] Comments on SKOS Primer - attn: Ivan

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:25:25 +0100
Message-ID: <4965FEC5.7040402@w3.org>
To: Thomas Baker <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>
CC: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, SWD Working Group <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
I am a little bit afraid of the possible mismatch between the term
'value' and rdf:value...

Ivan

Thomas Baker wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 11:17:54AM +0100, Ivan Herman wrote:
>>> But I'm afraid 'general RDF node'is not enough. As specified in the RDF
>>> concepts, this include literals:
>>>> A node may be a URI with optional fragment identifier (URI reference,
>>>> or URIref), a literal, or blank
>>> So I would rather use 'general non-literal RDF node'
>>> I hope this does not sound too complex... It's a pity that no one ever
>>> re-used this Primer's 'structured RDF value thing'? Experts should read
>>> the primers more often ;-)
>> :-)
>>
>> Yeah, the non-literal addition makes it more precise indeed. It is a bit
>> complex but, well, that is the way it is...
> 
> How about "non-literal value"?  I can't imagine changing
> "non-literal value" to "general non-literal RDF node" in,
> say, [1].  Eyes would roll... :-)
> 
> Tom
> 
> [1] http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/11/03/profile-guidelines/#appc
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf


Received on Thursday, 8 January 2009 13:35:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 8 January 2009 13:35:45 GMT