- From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 18:51:35 -0400
- To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
- Cc: "public-rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Regards, Dave On Aug 24, 2012, at 16:00, Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr> wrote: > I'm 100% with Richard on this issue and I propose that we make the following resolution: > 1. if a term is normatively defined by RDF 1.0, we adopt it for RDF 1.1 without any change; > 2. if a term is normatively defined by SPARQL and we want to put the concept in RDF 1.1, we adopt it without any change; > 3. for all terms that do not have a normative definition yet in either RDF or SPARQL, we leave the discussion open to settle on a term. Hmm, that's just what we did, but people insist on arguing over terms such as RDF Graph :) The chairs and team contacts have *no plans* to discuss terminology at the next telecon. We all seem to agree that there is more to be discussed, but let's please put that off until we agree on the concepts. Thanks. Regards, Dave
Received on Friday, 24 August 2012 22:52:13 UTC