- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 21:14:47 +0000
- To: Thomas Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
- Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Hi Tom, On 20 Nov 2012, at 15:47, Thomas Baker wrote: > But it would be great if the WG could say a bit more about > this issue, somewhere other than in RDF Concepts, if only a paragraph or two > drawing out a few key points from that long and, at times, insightful > discussion. What I hear is a proposal that the WG do extra work for the benefit of those members who don't care enough to participate in discussions or scour the archives. Personally I have no interest in doing this work, although I understand the benefit of doing it. > If RDF Concepts has called them RDF Sources, those two paragraphs > somewhere should say something about this choice of terms. Was it just a coin > toss? It's a proposal. Nothing is decided. If the term is adopted, it will be with the usual process: Someone proposed it, and no one hated it enough to threaten a formal objection. Best, Richard
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2012 21:15:16 UTC