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

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

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 11:25:19 -0400
Message-ID: <4E26F35F.6040500@thefigtrees.net>
To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
CC: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 7/20/2011 11:11 AM, Steve Harris wrote:
> 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.

And me too.

>>> 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.

Agree with this. I like "graph container". ("Like".)

>>> 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.

Yup.

Lee

> - Steve
>
Received on Wednesday, 20 July 2011 15:25:52 GMT

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