W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > September 2013

Re: (proposal) was Re: defn of Named Graph

From: Thomas Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 22:06:34 -0400
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20130927020634.GA10074@julius.local>
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 08:11:03AM -0400, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> 2. We briefly apologize for the confusing names 

+1

>                                                 -- a Named Graph is
> not actually an RDF Graph that happens to have been given a name --
> it's a fundamentally different thing that *can* be given a name.

Finding the right words to explain this will be a challenge, but I think it is
important to do so, especially if it will not be covered in the Primer.

> (It's what Pat likes to call a surface and I like to call a g-box.)

It would be nice if the note could recap some of the thinking behind this, as
per [1].

> When people say "graph" in the RDF world, they are often talking
> about Named Graphs, not RDF Graphs, as evidenced by them talking
> about "putting things into the graph", or otherwise changing them.

Yes, this point needs to be acknowledged somewhere - and explained.

> Strawpoll: If I wrote this up for a WG note, in a style you liked,
> would you support the WG publishing it?

+1

Tom

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Nov/0305.html

-- 
Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
Received on Friday, 27 September 2013 02:07:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:16 UTC