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

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

From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 01:10:09 -0400
Message-ID: <CANfjZH1FvDfNBfttddRi1EsCiK-Y4JgyhtLguP31xh80H4nygg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Thomas Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Sep 27, 2013 4:07 AM, "Thomas Baker" <tom@tombaker.org> wrote:
>
> 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

+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 05:10:36 UTC

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