W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > March 2014

Re: What should we call RDF's ability to allow multiple models to peacefully coexist, interconnected?

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 11:16:16 -0400
Message-ID: <53207A40.8030907@dbooth.org>
To: semantic-web@w3.org
On 03/07/2014 11:20 AM, David Booth wrote:
> This google doc lists several candidate terms, some pros and cons, and
> allows you to indicate which ones you like best:
> http://goo.gl/zrXQgj

Thanks to all for the contributions and observations!  It is interesting 
what a variety of terms people have suggested, and I suspect that this 
is not entirely good, as it means that people learning about RDF are 
probably getting an inconsistent message as we describe it in such 
different ways.  Some consolidation in the way we talk about it would 
probably help, though I don't think we need 100% uniformity.

FWIW, for a short adjective phrase that I can use as a bullet item on a 
technical slide -- one that completes the sentence: "RDF is 
________________" -- I think I will go with the phrase:

   "Multi-schema friendly"

And for explaining this benefit in the least technical way, I 
particularly like Hugh Glaser's suggestion:

   "Supports multiple overlapping vocabularies"

Please feel free to continue to add suggestions or vote for your favorites:
http://goo.gl/zrXQgj

Thanks!
David Booth
Received on Wednesday, 12 March 2014 15:16:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:41:41 UTC