- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:20:23 -0400
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- CC: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 08/17/2012 09:57 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 8/17/12 9:52 AM, David Wood wrote:
>> On Aug 17, 2012, at 09:09, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com> wrote:
>>> With apologies for breaching the worm-can.
>> Yeah, I was really hoping we could make some progress without getting
>> lost in naming. It is not our most important problem. Besides,
>> polymorphic naming is everywhere in our language not just in computer
>> science. I am not swayed by objections to it.
>>
>> So, I don't particularly care about the term space and won't fight
>> over it. "source" works for me, and I would accept the others.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>
> You have RDF data sources (datasets or triple collections) associated
> with RDF data source names (which can take the form of an IRI). How
> about that?
>
+1 (I'm happy with those terms, and I take your point, in an earlier
email, about different naming conventions working for different
communities, even if I'm not sure which communities are more or less
ready for RDF.)
(Can we try to be good about our subject lines? Some people really
don't want to be involved in this bit of the discussion.)
-- Sandro
> Kingsley
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Friday, 17 August 2012 14:20:38 UTC