- From: Thomas Baker <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 14:12:22 +0100
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, Thomas Baker <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>, SWD Working Group <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 11:17:54AM +0100, Ivan Herman wrote: > > But I'm afraid 'general RDF node'is not enough. As specified in the RDF > > concepts, this include literals: > >> A node may be a URI with optional fragment identifier (URI reference, > >> or URIref), a literal, or blank > > > > So I would rather use 'general non-literal RDF node' > > I hope this does not sound too complex... It's a pity that no one ever > > re-used this Primer's 'structured RDF value thing'? Experts should read > > the primers more often ;-) > > :-) > > Yeah, the non-literal addition makes it more precise indeed. It is a bit > complex but, well, that is the way it is... How about "non-literal value"? I can't imagine changing "non-literal value" to "general non-literal RDF node" in, say, [1]. Eyes would roll... :-) Tom [1] http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/11/03/profile-guidelines/#appc -- Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Received on Thursday, 8 January 2009 13:13:02 UTC