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

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

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 16:11:30 +0100
Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <C0F29B12-6F4C-43E8-A627-501D6A20E7F3@garlik.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
On 2011-07-20, at 15:55, 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.

Agreed.

>> g-box: "RDF graph resource"?
> 
> -1 on "resource" -- in RDF, everything is a resource, certainly
> including g-snaps.
> 
> There's nothing I really like here, but I could live with "graph
> container" or "triplestore".

"Triplestore" is often loosely used to also mean quad store, or named-graph store, so it's maybe not ideal.

>> g-text: <no name>? "RDF graph serialization/representation"?
> 
> I'm happy with "RDF graph serialization".    -1 on "representation",
> since the representation relationship is so vague and used in so many
> other ways in RDF.

Agreed.

- Steve

-- 
Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Wednesday, 20 July 2011 15:12:12 GMT

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