- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 12:33:56 +0100
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 2012-05-25, at 12:28, Richard Cyganiak wrote: ... > Could we do this? To see how deep a change this wold require, I looked for uses of “resource” throughout the specs. > > • RDF Concepts doesn't really rely on the term besides defining it. > > • RDF Semantics mostly uses it in the form of the IRI rdfs:Resource. > > • RDF/XML has it all over the place due to the rdf:resource attribute. > > • Turtle almost doesn't use it. > > • SPARQL uses it quite a few times, but nothing too difficult to change. > > • RDF Schema uses it *very* heavily. > > • So does the old Primer. > > • OWL2 barely uses it, except in the RDF-based semantics and in the > RDF/XML rdf:resource attribute > > • URIs and IRIs are “Uniform/Internationalized Resource Identifiers”, so the > term implicitly creeps in wherever we talk about URIs and IRIs. > > • RDF is the Resource Description Framework… > > I don't know. Sounds like a difficult thing to do and tons of work. Anyone seriously thinks this would be a good idea? No. For me it's in the same area as "literals as subjects", nice idea, but just too disruptive. - Steve -- Steve Harris, CTO Garlik, a part of Experian 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK +44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93 Registered office: Landmark House, Experian Way, Nottingham, Notts, NG80 1ZZ
Received on Friday, 25 May 2012 11:36:23 UTC