- From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
- Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 15:49:37 -0700
- To: public-hydra@w3.org
- CC: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
hello kingsley. On 2015-04-27 13:48, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > I should have been clearer. I was responding to the following excerpt: > """ 3.2. Describing Web Services > In the context of this specification, "description" refers to > information that is intended for machine consumption. Typical > formats for this are dictated by the technology underlying the > service itself, which means that in today's format landscape, > description formats exist in XML, JSON, RDF, and a variety of other > languages. "" > From the document identified by the HTTP URI/URL: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-service-link-rel-00 :) > "..description formats exist in XML, JSON, RDF, and a variety of other > languages." > Is confusing. i do know that you dislike the term "metamodel", and i agree that "format" may be a bit too close to a concrete serialization. but since RDF in itself is not a model (it kind of is, of course, but more specifically, it is a model for building models), i am wondering what term you'd prefer. "language" is a bit fuzzy to me, and as you know i think metamodel is actually pretty accurate. but i am open to other suggestions. thanks and cheers, dret. -- erik wilde | mailto:dret@berkeley.edu - tel:+1-510-2061079 | | UC Berkeley - School of Information (ISchool) | | http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |
Received on Monday, 27 April 2015 22:50:04 UTC