- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 23:38:54 +0100
- To: "Miles, AJ \(Alistair\)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- CC: public-swd-wg@w3.org
Hi Alistair, >> Unfortunately I've got no strong opinion on this. >> Perhaps you could try and adapt the vocabulary for the >> "simple extension" proposal for ISSUE-26 [1]. that is, adding >> "Resource" >> whenever a property indeed targets resourcers instead of literals... >> > > I could live with that. Although, technically speaking, literals are resources too. In the RDF semantics, everything is a resource. This might seem like a technical point, but I do like to stick as strictly as possible to the terminology used in the RDF semantics. > You're right. The problem is that we've used 'resource' all the way long when discussing these issues, and no one has really objected to this, even if the SWD crowd might have a significant proportion of people who had at least a look at the RDF semantics. What's the proper name by the way? "Reference"? Cheers, Antoine
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2007 22:39:06 UTC