W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > August 2012

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

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 16:45:59 +0200
To: "'Pat Hayes'" <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: "'Sandro Hawke'" <sandro@w3.org>, "'W3C RDF WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <015701cd7ee2$843273a0$8c975ae0$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:19 UTC