- From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 15:38:49 +0100 (BST)
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
- cc: "McBride, Brian" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "RDF Interest (E-mail)" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Graham Klyne wrote: > P.S. am I the only person who has some difficulty with overloading of the > term "model" to mean > (a) the abstract, theoretical foundation for any collection of RDF > statements, and also > (b) some such collection? usually this is evident from context; people can usually distinguish between "the RDF Model" and "an RDF model"*. Suggesting alternative terms** at this point will likely descend into a longwinded trawl through wordnet. Regarding the signing of a 'canonical' serialisation: this seems a reasonable idea. The two clouds on the horizon I can see here are: the assignment of "canonical" URIs to anonymous nodes may prove a sticking point; and it's not immediately apparent (to me, anyway) how much information (if any) should be preserved to handle namespace issues. None, I'd say (I'm leaning towards the "namespaces are a serialisation issue" point of view). I suppose the whole point of a canonical serialisation is that somebody makes these decisions (arbitrarily?) and we all like it or lump it. jan * maybe the capitalisation, germanic as it is, suffices? For verbal communication we could simply shout when pronouncing "Model" :-) ** "instantiation"? - obligatory suggestion. -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287163 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk No, procmail is _not_ your friend.
Received on Monday, 11 September 2000 10:41:14 UTC