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
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