- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 14:29:23 -0400
- To: Thomas Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
- CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, 'W3C RDF WG' <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 08/20/2012 12:26 PM, Thomas Baker wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 11:30:23AM -0400, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>> +1. Yes, let's be okay with the term "graph" (even RDF Graph)
>> being fuzzy . And yes, we should probably have terminology for
>> use when we don't want to be fuzzy, like "abstract graph".
> +1 - I like where this discussion is going.
>
Another big benefit of this is that the term "named graph" makes a whole
lot more sense. With this proposal, linguistically speaking, the
"graph" might be an abstract graph (g-snap) *or* a graph source (g-box).
(That happens to line up with what I think is a sensible
technical design.)
-- Sandro
Received on Monday, 20 August 2012 18:29:33 UTC