- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 10:19:06 -0600
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Brian McBride wrote: > > Dan, > > In > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001JanMar/0077.html > > an issue with the RDF specs was raised on your behalf which was recorded in > > http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-logical-terminololgy > > as > > The current RDF terminology is inconsistent with the long established > terminology used by logicians. For example, what RDF'er's call a 'model' > is called an 'abstract syntax' by logicians. Logicians use the term > model but for something quite different. > > On 9th November 2001, as recorded in > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0294.html > > the RDFCore WG resolved > > The WG closes rdfms-logical-terminololgy on the grounds that the > new terminology introduced by the model theory adequately > addresses this issue. > > Please reply to this message, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org indicating whether > this resolution is acceptable. Provided this use of terminology is carried into the primer, yes, I'm satisfied. Note that this new terminology is quite different from what lots of implementors and APIs use; they speak of "parsing an RDF document and getting a model". I'm not sure that makes sense any more, and I'd like the primer to clarify. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 12 November 2001 11:20:50 UTC