- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 19:05:14 +0100
- To: "'Guus Schreiber'" <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Saturday, December 14, 2013 2:50 PM, Guus Schreiber wrote: > On 14-12-13 12:32, Markus Lanthaler wrote: > > On Saturday, December 14, 2013 10:52 AM, Pat Hayes wrote: > >> Option 1 works for me. I like option 2 better but I also see that it > >> would probably get too complicated to explain in a primer. > >> > >> I would prefer to also add a slightly stronger warning to option 1, > >> something like this at the end of the paragraph: > >> > >> "Note however that RDF provides no way to convey this semantic > >> assumption to other readers of the dataset." > > > > +1, I was just about to write the same. If we stick to option 1, I > would > > like to see "out-of-band knowledge" added to the sentence above or in > a > > separate one to make this crystal clear (yeah, it's basically the > same but > > nevertheless I think it will help people understanding this). > > OK. Suggest to extend Pat's formulation as follows: > > [[ > Note however that RDF provides no way to convey this semantic > assumption > to other readers of the dataset. Those readers will need to rely on > out-of-band knowledge to interpret the dataset in the intended way. > ]] +1, thanks -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Saturday, 14 December 2013 18:05:49 UTC