- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 16:16:39 -0500
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
pat hayes wrote: > > I forgot to mention. You used the term 'primary value' to refer to > the value of rdf:value (if you see what I mean), and I avoided it > deliberately because in this context particularly it might suggest to > someone with a DB background that rdf:value was being used to > indicate a primary field in a DBS, and nothing could be wronger. I > havnt checked whether or not you follow this usage elsewhere in the > primer. Pat-- (minor point) I have a database background and I wasn't confused (nothing like a large sample size to prove a point!). I think the database term you have in mind is "primary key" rather than "primary field", and we've never suggested anything like "key-ness" of values in any of this discussion (A "key" is a unique identifier; a "primary key" is selected from among the possible "candidate keys" to identify rows in a relational table; a row in one table might identify a specific row in another table using a "foreign key". Note that all these involve using various adjectives on "key". I'm not familiar with "primary field"). However, if people think it'll be a problem we can change it to "main" (as you did in your rewrite). --Frank -- Frank Manola The MITRE Corporation 202 Burlington Road, MS A345 Bedford, MA 01730-1420 mailto:fmanola@mitre.org voice: 781-271-8147 FAX: 781-271-8752
Received on Monday, 9 December 2002 16:16:45 UTC