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

Re: RDF-ISSUE-110 (g-box): A proper term for the concept formerly known as ?g-box?? [RDF Concepts]

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 09:52:03 +0000
Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <2E745C6A-CCBD-47F2-BD29-E33AC3C9CE78@cyganiak.de>
To: Thomas Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
On 20 Nov 2012, at 05:57, Thomas Baker wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 04:29:32PM +0000, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>> On 12 Nov 2012, at 08:37, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>> +1 from me on "RDF Source".
>> 
>> Okay, it seems most here can live with that term, which is encouraging.
> 
> I could live with "RDF Source" too, though "source" is an awfully general word
> so I'm more interested in the accompanying explanation.  

As stated in the issue description, the term will be used in the informative introduction to RDF Concepts, specifically in sections 1.5 and 1.6:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#change-over-time

It will not be *normatively* defined, and will not be used anywhere in normative text in any of the documents.

The bar for some informative text in the introduction is considerably lower than the bar for a normative concept that becomes part of the formally defined RDF data model. This informative use does not preclude any future WGs from normatively defining the same concept, or a similar concept, using a different name.

> For example, can we
> just substitute "space" with "source" from the following [1]?
> 
>    An RDF space [=> source] is anything that can reasonably be said to
>    explicitly contain zero or more RDF triples and has an identity distinct
>    from the triples it contains. 

No. “RDF source” has no strict definition, and questions of containment or identity are not addressed.

> I am curious how we ended up with "source"

Go to the tracker, find ISSUE-110, read the thread.

> it was not one of the
> half-dozen or so options bandied about a few months ago [1]:

That document was a personal draft produced by the four people named at the top of the document, and reflects their personal opinions, preferences and biases. It is in no way a complete or even particularly representative reflection of what was discussed in the WG.

Best,
Richard




> 
>    The term "space" might change. The final terminology has not yet been
>    selected by the Working Group. Other candidates include "g-box", "data
>    space", "graph space", "(data) surface", "(data) layer", "sheet", and
>    "(data) page". The contributors also note that the term “resource” was
>    considered, and could be used but for possible ambiguities with other,
>    partially overlapping, uses of that term. The term “RDF space” is intended
>    to be synonymous with the term “g-box”, as defined by the RDF Working
>    Group.
> 
> ...but "graph container" was not on that list either [2].
> 
> Tom
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2012/08/RDFNG.html#
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-10-12#resolution_1
> 
> -- 
> Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
> 
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2012 09:52:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:53 GMT