• From: Dan Brickley <Daniel.Brickley@b...>
• To: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>
• Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 19:52:09 +0000 (GMT)

On Tue, 2 Jan 2001, Uche Ogbuji wrote:

> > > Since this thing is directing one to a bunch of potentially
> > > interesting and related resources, "resource directory" seems
> > > the most natural to me (I can take or leave "discovery").
> >
> > How about Resource Description File?
> 
> I likes it, but the "RDF" would probably be confusing.  Of course, Dan, as
> RDF activity chair (or whatever it is precisely) you have no intentions
> whatever in increasing the pervasity of your ward acronym, hmm?
>
> Just kidding, of course.

Me too ;-)

If the RD* file didn't have a natural interpretation within the RDF
model I'd be rather worried though, since we're basically talking about
a bunch of typed, annotated links pointing to typed
Web-addressable resources. FWIW I'll be putting XHTML and RDF at most
of my namespaces and could really do with a vocabulary for pointing to
Java classes, XML schemata, public keys, XSLTs and suchlike to include
alongside.

So what about Resource Description Resource? 

<ducks/>

Dan

(RDF Interest Group chair)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Resource gloss [was:Re: Resource discovery directory [was:XMLCatalog proposal]]
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>

• References:
  • Re: Resource gloss [was:Re: Resource discovery directory [was: XMLCatalog proposal]]
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Resource gloss [was:Re: Resource discovery directory [was:XMLCatalog proposal]]
• Next by Date: Re: Resource gloss
• Previous by thread: Re: Resource gloss [was:Re: Resource discovery directory [was: XMLCatalog proposal]]
• Next by thread: Re: Resource gloss [was:Re: Resource discovery directory [was:XMLCatalog proposal]]
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread