- From: Alexandre Passant <alexandre.passant@deri.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 18:19:13 +0000
- To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Cc: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 11 Jan 2011, at 17:29, Steve Harris wrote: > 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. I'm also in favor of RDF content (or RDF data) Alex. > > - 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 > > -- Dr. Alexandre Passant Digital Enterprise Research Institute National University of Ireland, Galway :me owl:sameAs <http://apassant.net/alex> .
Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2011 18:20:49 UTC