On 12/21/2014 7:21, Arthur Ryman wrote:
Andy/Holger,
As both a Jena user and a member of the Shapes WG, I feel compelled to
comment. Please, let's not inflate one person's negative opinion to
"some people". IMHO Jena is a fabulous project and my company has
gotten tremendous benefit from it. I hope that when the Shapes
standard firms up the Jena project will be interesting in implementing
it.
+1
and thanks to Andy for explaining the (historical) background.
Terminology is never easy to get right, especially if it is overloaded
from so many directions (e.g. "REST resource") and then changes over
time. Yet we do have a situation in which the majority of people using
RDF seems to have a different understanding than what the spec writers
have. E.g.
"There are two kinds of nodes: resources and literals" (Hebeler et al
"Semantic Web Programming", p69).
and similar statements everywhere. Sesame API uses the same names too.
Thanks,
Holger
