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

On 2011-07-20, at 23:49, Guus Schreiber wrote:

> Attempt at consensus summary (among this small group):
> 
>  g-snap: "abstract RDF graph"
>  g-box: "RDF graph container"
>  g-text: "RDF graph serialization"

Looks good to me.

- Steve

> On 20-07-2011 17:25, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
>> 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
>>> 
>> 
> 

-- 
Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD

Received on Friday, 22 July 2011 07:59:46 UTC