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

Re: Graph terminology in spec text.

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 11:52:57 +0100
Message-ID: <4E280509.7020500@epimorphics.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
CC: public-rdf-wg@w3.org


On 21/07/11 09:40, Dan Brickley wrote:
> On 21 July 2011 09:27, Andy Seaborne<andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>  wrote:
>> On 21/07/11 01:08, Ian Davis wrote:
>>>
>>> We recognise that "graph" has subtly different semantics
>>> between sparql and rdf concepts so let's avoid that term.
>>
>> It would be helpful to if you could point to text in the SPARQL specs that
>> leads to that conclusion.  It should be changed because a graph is value and
>> used as such in SPARQL, both in query and update.  As such , the changes are
>> editorial and not a cause for a SPARQL second last call.
>
> If the terminology can be unified and 'graph' kept in our technical
> vocabulary, there are significant benefits for RDF.
>
> The word 'triple' seems to alienate many people, whereas the wider
> tech scene is lately abuzz with all kinds of talk of 'graphs':
>
>   - the social graph
>   - interest graphs
>   - graph databases

Agreed.

I have found that drawing graphs (= nodes and arcs) helps explain 
"linking" to people.  Turtle, laid out as records, sometimes does not 
make the connection that using the URI again elsewhere is the connection 
(arc, triple) usage. This use of "graph" seems to work for most.

	Andy
Received on Thursday, 21 July 2011 10:53:33 GMT

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