W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > August 2012

Re: [All] Proposal: RDF Graph Identification

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:34:53 +0100
Message-ID: <502E3A6D.6080305@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org


On 17/08/12 13:21, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 8/17/12 7:37 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>
>> Like Steve, the name "space" does not work for me either because of,
>> for example, "data spaces".  We aren't naming from a clean sheet.
>>
>> "container" works for me in the figure.  Something with the idea of
>> containing (like 'slot' graph store).  "box"?
>
> What about any of the following:
>
> 1. RDF data spaces

The whole idea of aligning to "data spaces" does not work for me as I'd 
expect it to be a collection of graphs with ontology mappings if taken 
from the whole adapter-"pay-as-you-go" meta meme in current database 
research.

(for anyone lost here :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dataspaces)

> 2. RDF data source names.

There is something worth considering in "source";

RDF source
RDF data source
Triple source
Graph source
...

>
>
> Backdrop:
>
> The terminology alignment between RDF + SPARQL and the broader realm of
> DBMS technology (esp. because of SPARQL) is ultimately a win-win. In the
> RDBMS realm (as you and Steve know) we have:

I agree about the desirability of alignment but getting too close has 
it's own issues.

>
> RDBMS - Relational Tables (while RDF stores are basically Relational
> Property Graphs)
> Tables -- Named Relations comprised of n-tuples
> Data Source Names (DSNs) -- for ODBC,  JDBC etc. access scoped to
> Tables/Views re. data access by reference pattern
> Views -- for all intents an purposes this aligns well with
> backward-chained inference
> Triggers -- for all intents an purposes this aligns well with
> forward-chained inference .

	Andy
Received on Friday, 17 August 2012 12:35:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:06 UTC