- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 16:07:03 +0000
- To: connolly@w3.org
- CC: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Dan, In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001JanMar/0077.html an issue with the RDF specs was raised on your behalf which was recorded in http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-logical-terminololgy as The current RDF terminology is inconsistent with the long established terminology used by logicians. For example, what RDF'er's call a 'model' is called an 'abstract syntax' by logicians. Logicians use the term model but for something quite different. On 9th November 2001, as recorded in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0294.html the RDFCore WG resolved The WG closes rdfms-logical-terminololgy on the grounds that the new terminology introduced by the model theory adequately addresses this issue. Please reply to this message, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org indicating whether this resolution is acceptable. Brian McBride RDFCore co-chair
Received on Monday, 12 November 2001 11:07:23 UTC