RE: A radical proposal. (was: Re: new names for g-box, g-snap)

On Monday, August 20, 2012 4:39 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:

> >> Under this proposal (which, to emphasise, is purely one of
> terminology,
> >> not actual content) we would say that an RDF/XML or an Ntriples
> >> document actually *is* an RDF graph.
> >
> > Well, to be clear, it is a representation of an RDF graph, isn't it?
> Maybe we are at another terminology cliff here. The document is the
> thing I edit and store, and you http-poke, and you get back a REST-
> representation of it in the form of a byte stream. You don't actually
> get my document. My document is the resource. Just like HTML, where I
> edit an HTML document and store it on a server and call it a web page,
> and your HTTP GET gets a copy of it to take away as its representation.
> Right?

Right :-)

Markus Lanthaler

Received on Monday, 20 August 2012 14:46:33 UTC