W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > February 2011

Re: Graphs and Being and Time

From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pchampin@liris.cnrs.fr>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 00:23:53 +0100
Message-ID: <4D659709.401@liris.cnrs.fr>
To: "nathan@webr3.org" <nathan@webr3.org>
CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, "public-rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 02/24/2011 12:12 AM, Nathan wrote:
> Hi Pierre-Antoine,
>
> Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
>> I'm not sure about "graph literal" proposed by Nathan, as the term
>> "literal" is already used in RDF, and that it may cause much confusion,
>> IMHO...
>
> Indeed, although I did specifically mention "graph literal" to equate to
> quote-graphs/graph-literals in N3 and hopefully convey what I mean
> correctly, and also because if we are taking this abstract graph to be
> the set of triples, like the number denoted by '8' or the letter denoted
> by 'A', then that would be a literal in RDF terms, would it not?

I would, most definitely.
My intent was not to imply that the term is inappropriate, only that it 
was risky -- because the similarity may not be obvious to RDF newcomers...

> finally, I'd hoped it would clear up some of the misunderstandings over
> the different things people refer to when using terms like named graph
> and graph literal (or quoted graph) so that people may see it's not an
> either or thing, but rather they are two distinct concepts and we need
> them both.

agreed

> That said, I don't actually mind what terms are used at all for the two
> concepts, I just hope that the RDF concepts cater for both of them, and
> that they are both acknowledged and prove to be widely understood (and
> understandable) should they be adopted :)

agreed again, but the choice of the term may help to make the concept 
adopted :)

   pa

> Best,
>
> Nathan
>
Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2011 23:24:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:38 GMT