W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2004

Re: [Fwd: FROM keyword unnecessary?] (s/model/graph/g)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 18:03:56 -0500
To: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, 'RDF Data Access Working Group' <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1096499036.5269.106.camel@dirk>
On Wed, 2004-09-29 at 17:46, Kendall Clark wrote:
[...]
>  1. a query against a single model,

Let's please use standard terminology in our discussions.
I let this go a few times at the ftf, and I'm having
trouble following the SOURCE discussions in part because
I think folks are neglecting to use standard terminology.

I think it's worthwhile to start getting picker.

I think you mean graph. "Expression" or "formula" are
also reasonably standard terms for such syntactic
constructs.

"model" isn't a standard term. In the Semantic Web
community, it's ambiguous; it could mean a formula/graph,
as it often did in the earlier RDF M&S specs, or it could
mean a satisfying interpretation.

http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#glossInterpretation
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#glossModeltheory

In these protocol discussions, there's also a risk of conflating
  - a resource identified by <http://...>
  - a representation of that resource in RDF/XML
  - a graph one gets by parsing such a representation

Sometimes the difference matters; sometimes it doesn't.

I haven't spotted any such conflations in this discussion
so far, but I figure it's worth pointing out anyway.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Wednesday, 29 September 2004 23:03:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:20 GMT