- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:25:25 +0100
- To: Thomas Baker <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>
- CC: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, SWD Working Group <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Received on Thursday, 8 January 2009 13:35:44 UTC
I am a little bit afraid of the possible mismatch between the term 'value' and rdf:value... Ivan Thomas Baker wrote: > 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 > -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Thursday, 8 January 2009 13:35:44 UTC