W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > January 2001

Re: RDF Terminologicus

From: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 11:55:42 +0000
Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20010105114555.00a9e970@pop.dial.pipex.com>
To: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
Cc: RDF-IG <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
At 10:34 AM 1/5/01 +0100, Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN wrote:
> > A simpler approach
> > is to not try and define "stand for" and see if its use in the definition
> > of 'reification' can "stand" unsupported
>
>On the contrary, I think it is an important definition :
>the terms "represents", "models" or "stands for" are quite intuitive,
>and hence we use them a lot, so they deserve a formal definition.

OK, let's start again on that one...

When I say "X stands for Y", I mean that a reference to "X" is to be taken 
as indicating "Y".  Thus if resource R stands for some statement S, I use R 
when I want to talk about S.

Now, to boil that down to a definition...

<original>
Stand for:
   A labelled entity that is used in descriptions indicate some entity or
   concept.
</original>

<suggestion>
Stand for:
   The use of one entity or concept in a description to refer to some other 
entity or concept.  For example, "X stands for Y in Z" meaning that 
occurrences of "X" in "Z" are to be understood as references to "Y".
</suggestion>

------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Friday, 5 January 2001 08:04:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:47 GMT