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: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 11:01:55 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFNgM+ZmgVT_W5BPkuCjPu88HvX6TjavUFA1eXOyxdrY7PYADg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, 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 July 2011 09:23, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote:
> 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.

(FWIW, I also found 'graph' awkward initially. But things have moved on...)

> And the term “tree” is such a hurdle to learning XML, they think it's a large coniferous plant.

Like a family (christmas) tree?

> And the term “table” is such a hurdle to learning databases, they think it's a piece of furniture. Made from trees.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_differences

"in BrE to table an item on an agenda means to open it up for
discussion whereas in AmE, it means to remove it from discussion, or
at times, to suspend or delay discussion."

But our immediate audience isn't the general public, it's the general
Web tech public. So it's worth looking at the kinds of thing they're
reading lately, and how the word 'graph' is used.  Also btw populist
airport bookstores are full of graph theory lately,  "Six Degrees",
"Linked", "Connected", etc..., but let's focus on RDF's immediate
target audience - Web technologists:


"You may have heard about the social graph and the interest graph, but
what about the health graph? "
-- http://echcrunch.com/tag/health-graph/

"[Facebook]  and its promotion of the social graph as a measure of
what’s to come. [...]
Facebook looks to capitalize on this by “renting” their graph to
websites through Facebook Connect, which, he says, “is exceptionally
powerful” and in turn may lead to their successfully “replacing core
messaging services.” [...]
Zuckerberg has repeatedly said that the social graph at the core of
their business is integral to the success of Facebook — and the future
of the Web. [...]
 ...citing demand generation and demand discovery (search) advertising
as a prime example of the limitations of the social graph.  [...]
As such, what everyone in Silicon Valley and “Venture Land” conceive
of as the real game-changing model involves capturing and capitalizing
on the “interest graph,” he says. "
--- http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/17/levchin-and-gurley-say-that-next-big-company-will-capture-the-interest-graph/

"ShopSocially Taps Into Your Social Graph For Product Recommendations"

Also nearby, Open Graph API,

... there are of course also articles that use 'graph' in terms of x-y
plot ('graph your inbox' etc). But we shouldn't underestimate the
potential for 'social graph', 'interest graph' etc to pull discussions
in our direction.

"The latest crop of startups is focusing on personalization using a
combination of Interest and Social Graphs."
"Interest Graphs will be used to build Better Social Graphs. Today’s
monolithic Interest Graph will get further specialized into Taste
Graphs, Financial Graphs, Local Network Graphs, etc., yielding higher
relevance for different needs."

(and that's without getting into 'graph database'...)

Can we engage with the above discussions, and talk about RDF as W3C's
standard way of representing interest graphs, social graphs, financial
graphs, family tree graphs, ... ? Or do we opt out of that discussion
because graph is 'ambiguous'?

The word "triple" simply can't do the same explanatory work in public
discussions, nor can "TripleSet".

(although it could work in a purely technical context, if such things
still exist...)

Let's try,

"The latest crop of startups is focusing on personalization using a
combination of Interest and Social TripleSets."

" Today’s monolithic Interest TripleSet will get further specialized
into Taste TripleSets, Financial TripleSets, Local Network TripleSets,

> To be honest, I don't know why we are doing this terminology exercise.

(They don't call it the pedantic Web for nothing...)

> 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.

"multigraph" also sounds quite journalist-friendly...


Received on Thursday, 21 July 2011 09:02:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:00 UTC