W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > January 2012

Re: Towards PROV-O Accounts

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 10:04:21 -0500
Cc: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <3F62ACDE-8058-4201-8E43-E77F111A2077@rpi.edu>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Thanks, Sandro.

I was careful to avoid the term "named graph" everywhere I could.
I used it only where there was some formal, established meaning (namely, the service description vocabulary).

I am using RDF Abstract Graph wherever possible. 
sd:NamedGraph pairs the _current_ RDF Abstract Graph with the (dcterms:identifier-ish) sd:name, whose value is used when SPARQL INSERTing.

-Tim


On Jan 5, 2012, at 9:33 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:

> On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 08:34 +0000, Graham Klyne wrote:
>> 
>> (It's kind of dated now; I use the term "formulae", from Notation3, to
>> mean 
>> roughly what we mean by named graphs.)
> 
> And please note that the term "named graph" is deeply ambiguous, having
> completely different meanings (like night and day, or more like "night"
> and "gray") between the original paper than introduced the term and
> current SPARQL usage, and neither one is actually the intuitive meaning
> that an RDF graph is given a globally unambiguous URI name.   I avoid
> the term like the plague.
> 
> (I'm trying to swap in this prov-o work, as much as I can, but haven't
> gotten very far yet.)
> 
>    -- Sandro
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 5 January 2012 15:07:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:11 UTC