- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 17:29:19 +0000
- To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 2011-01-11, at 14:20, Axel Polleres wrote: >> Why not use the terminology "RDF content"? > > > While not really recalling whether we had that discussed as an alternative before > (I remember we had some discussions back and forth before arriving at "RDF knowledge"), > "RDF content" sounds like it could work... Opinions? I think "RDF Knowledge" is a bad term, for all the reasons people have pointed out. RDF content is better. - Steve -- Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK +44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2011 17:29:55 UTC