- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 08:23:57 +0100
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, Ian Davis <ian.davis@talis.com>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 21 Jul 2011, at 06:21, Sandro Hawke wrote: > I've always been annoyed at the term "Graph" -- it's one more > unnecessary hurdle to learning RDF. Anyone who hasn't studied graph > theory thinks a graph is graphical representation of data (eg an x-y > plot) and has to get over that association. And the term “tree” is such a hurdle to learning XML, they think it's a large coniferous plant. And the term “table” is such a hurdle to learning databases, they think it's a piece of furniture. Made from trees. To be honest, I don't know why we are doing this terminology exercise. The lack of finished terminology is not an obstacle. The g-* temporary terminology is perfectly fine for creating, discussing and evaluating proposals. Once we make progress with a proposal, the terminology will fall in place. I'd rather talk about *use cases* and *concrete proposals* for handling multigraphs in RDF. That way lies progress. Best, Richard
Received on Thursday, 21 July 2011 07:24:26 UTC