- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 07:28:52 -0500
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <509CF704.70209@openlinksw.com>
On 11/9/12 7:22 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > On 9 Nov 2012, at 12:01, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >> Since there's agreement [1] > Well, this is an Editor's Draft, and this is fresh text that hasn't been reviewed > >> that "any web document that has an RDF-bearing representation may be considered a g-box" does it not imply that a g-box is just an RDF document? > The sentence says that every RDF document is a g-box. This doesn't mean that every g-box is an RDF document. There could be other kinds of things that “contain” RDF graphs. > > Better not tie the notion of a mutable RDF container quite so tightly to the notion of publishing a document, IMO. > > Best, > Richard What about every g-box is an RDF source? Kingsley > > >> Link >> >> 1. http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#change-over-time . >> >> -- >> >> Regards, >> >> Kingsley Idehen >> Founder & CEO >> OpenLink Software >> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com >> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen >> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen >> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about >> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Friday, 9 November 2012 12:29:20 UTC