Re: Draft response to Ian Davis' comment

I'm okay with making this change.  Some time back Pat Hayes (in a comment
thread) had suggested 'named graph resource'.  I think 'content' is more
along the lines of what I had in mind and now that the protocol manages
default graphs as well as named graphs, 'RDF Graph content' seems more
appropriate to me than 'RDF content'.

-- Chime

On 1/11/11 12:29 PM, "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.
> - Steve


P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

Cleveland Clinic is ranked one of the top hospitals
in America by U.S.News & World Report (2010).  
Visit us online at for
a complete listing of our services, staff and

Confidentiality Note:  This message is intended for use
only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed
and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable
law.  If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or the employee or agent responsible for
delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If
you have received this communication in error,  please
contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in
its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy.  Thank you.

Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2011 18:23:15 UTC