W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-lld@w3.org > September 2011

Re: Reference to "the" Resource Description Framework?

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 16:17:48 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFNgM+YW-Qpm1do79-16S2J64KG9heMTeGxG6pXbcKhwfXQ=Rg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Cc: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, public-xg-lld@w3.org
On 14 September 2011 16:05, Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 08:25:07PM -0700, Karen Coyle wrote:
>> Tom, I think it depends on the context, and "the" works for me in
>> that case. Here's the opening line of the RDF primer:
>>
>> "The Resource Description Framework (RDF) is a language for
>> representing information about resources in the World Wide Web."
>>
>> The way it feels to me, "RDF" can stand alone but "Resource
>> Description Framework" needs "the" -- because you wouldn't say "such
>> as framework". And, no, I cannot cite any grammar rule to back this
>> up.
>
> I buy that; the opening sentence of the primer is a good example to follow.

Yes, it's *the* Resource Description Framework. We don't count the
revisions to W3C's approach as new Frameworks, or anything like that.
And we _don't_ say that each domain model / vocabulary / schema /
ontology is a distinct 'resource description framework'. There's only
one such "Framework", described by a growing pile of specs and
implemented by a growing pile of tools.


> Undone [1].
>
> Tom
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Scope&action=edit&undoafter=6431&undo=6438
>
> --
> Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 14 September 2011 14:18:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 14 September 2011 14:18:21 GMT