- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 16:09:49 +0100
- 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 UTC