- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 09:00:44 +0000
- To: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>
- CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
>> We all ready have: >> [[ http-rdf-update/ sec 8: >> Graph IRIs identify RDF knowledge (an information resource) >> ]] >> so why not use "information resource"? > > Because the resources identified by the graph IRIs in this protocol > manipulate RDF content, RDF content is distinct from other IRs by the manner > in which they facilitate machine understandability (which is the whole point > of the SW), and there is already a priori uncertainty about what the IRI of > a named graph identifies. Why not use the terminology "RDF content"? Andy
Received on Tuesday, 4 January 2011 09:06:41 UTC