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

Re: Proposing new terms for g-snap and g-text

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 16:09:49 +0100
Message-ID: <4E26EFBD.6030209@webr3.org>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
CC: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Sandro Hawke wrote:
> The agenda for today says:
> 
>> g-snap: "RDF graph"
> 
> I can live with this, but I'd be much happier if we also came up with a
> retronymic clarifying expansion, like "(abstract) RDF Graph", or
> "(mathematical) RDF Graph" to use when we needed to be sure to exclude
> all the loose usages.
> 
>> g-box: "RDF graph resource"?
> 
> -1 on "resource" -- in RDF, everything is a resource, certainly
> including g-snaps.

likewise, keep away from the word resource.

> There's nothing I really like here, but I could live with "graph
> container" or "triplestore".

triplestore, triple provider, graph provider all spring to mind.

>> g-text: <no name>? "RDF graph serialization/representation"?
> 
> I'm happy with "RDF graph serialization".

+1, would be very happy to see the word representation avoided.
Received on Wednesday, 20 July 2011 15:11:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:44 GMT