- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 09:01:42 +0100
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Richard, I have not made a thorough comparison, just read the Wiki page. I like the direction and I agree to make that part shorter and more palatable to outsiders. I wonder whether, at the end, we should not add some words about the updated version of the g-* terminology. My goal is to make an even more crisp differentiation between the model and the serialization; we all know that conflating these terms for the general public has done a huge harm. Ie, hammering this difference may be useful... Ivan On Nov 11, 2011, at 20:22 , Richard Cyganiak wrote: > The 2004 RDF Concepts spec starts with six pages of informative front matter, followed by six pages of normative text. > > From a 2011 point of view, the informative first part is not very good. I'd like to replace all of it with new text that is: > > * significantly shorter > * more relevant to understanding RDF > * a better reflection of 2011 understanding > * introduces more useful terms not mentioned in the 2004 version > (resource, vocabulary, concrete syntax, …) > * less redundant with the later normative sections > > I've drafted new text (using bits of the old text where possible). It's ~2 pages. > > http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/User:Rcygania2/RDF_Concepts_Introduction > > I'd appreciate comments on the draft, and please speak up if you have fundamental concerns about this step. > > Best, > Richard > > > (Housekeeping: ISSUE-68) ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Saturday, 12 November 2011 07:59:18 UTC