W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > July 2013

RE: "generalized", please; was Re: JSON-LD Telecon Minutes for 2013-07-16

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 15:13:02 +0200
To: <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <017801ce82ef$5e5115d0$1af34170$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
On Tuesday, July 16, 2013 10:23 PM, Sandro Hawke
> On 07/16/2013 12:22 PM, Manu Sporny wrote:
>    4. Add an option to produce "extended RDF", which defaults to
>       false. If the option is true, "extended RDF" will be produced,
>       retaining triples that have blank nodes as predicates. If the
>       option is false, standard RDF will be produced and triples with
>       blank node properties will be discarded.
> 
> The historical term for this is "generalized RDF", which has been used
> in W3C Rec-Track documents since at least 2007 [1] [2] [3].
> 
> This is also what I understood us to agree upon, and the Concepts
> editor implemented [4], although it's not really reflected in the
> minutes [5].
> 
> Aside from the historical point, it seems to me "extended RDF" could
> reasonably mean a lot of other things, including datasets, rules, or
> semantic extensions.  "Generalized" has a narrower meaning, although
> it's not a perfect term either.

You are right. That was a copy-and-paste from David's email. We are using "generalized RDF" throughout the spec (and link the term to the def. in Concepts) and will continue to do so.


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Wednesday, 17 July 2013 13:13:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:30 UTC