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

Re: graph terminology

From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:44:23 -0400
Message-Id: <8BFA758C-A7D2-4344-9D1C-3F688C6ACCD6@3roundstones.com>
Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, "public-rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
On Aug 17, 2012, at 10:20, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:

> On 08/17/2012 09:57 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> On 8/17/12 9:52 AM, David Wood wrote:
>>> On Aug 17, 2012, at 09:09, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com> wrote:
>>>> With apologies for breaching the worm-can.
>>> Yeah, I was really hoping we could make some progress without getting lost in naming.  It is not our most important problem. Besides, polymorphic naming is everywhere in our language not just in computer science.  I am not swayed by objections to it.
>>> 
>>> So, I don't particularly care about the term space and won't fight over it.  "source" works for me, and I would accept the others.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>> 
>> You have RDF data sources (datasets or triple collections) associated with RDF data source names (which can take the form of an IRI). How about that?
>> 
> 
> +1    (I'm happy with those terms, and I take your point, in an earlier email, about different naming conventions working for different communities, even if I'm not sure which communities are more or less ready for RDF.)

+1 if it helps us move on :). They aren't bad terms.

Regards,
Dave


> 
> (Can we try to be good about our subject lines?   Some people really don't want to be involved in this bit of the discussion.)
> 
>     -- Sandro
> 
>> Kingsley
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 17 August 2012 14:44:50 UTC

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