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

Re: Alternate proposal for new terms for g-snap, g-box and g-text

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 08:23:57 +0100
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>
Message-Id: <57B93007-4E83-4CE4-8D9E-BEE98ACD1A0C@cyganiak.de>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@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 GMT

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