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

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

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 08:45:51 -0400
Message-ID: <52457DFF.2070703@w3.org>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 09/27/2013 03:56 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> Overall, a discussion note would be good.
>
> On 26/09/13 20:02, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>> We have two levels of specs, right?  There are the ones that are
>> thoroughly reviewed and proven to be implentable, which we call
>> Recommendations.
>
> The terminology "named graph" is in use in RECs and RECs-to-be. 
> Redefining terminology might be appealing in the short term but I feel 
> only leads to confusion long term.
>
> rdf-11-concepts:
> """
> Each named graph is a pair consisting of an IRI or a blank node (the
> graph name), and an RDF graph.
> """
>
> and in JSON-LD (sec 7, Data Model)
> and in SPARQL (sec 12.1.2)
>

Thanks for pointing this out.    I was doing a little wishful thinking 
and misremembering RDF 1.1 Concepts as steering clear of this definition 
that I've been complaining about for years.   (I see now Section 1.6 
incorrectly says that the RDF Graphs in the Dataset "are called Named 
Graphs".   Perhaps that sentence should be changed to including the word 
"informally" or something, since formally speaking it's false.)

Anyway, this leaves us with some options:

(1) Try to convince ourselves and the Director that this is not a 
subtantive change.    In favor of this view is the fact that it wont 
change a line of code.   Against this view: it seems to be something 
that people care about a lot, so changing it after they've reviewed the 
document is uncool.

(2) Be silently inconsistent in our use of the term Named Graph among 
our publications.

(3) Make the apology/explanation in the Note somewhat bigger.

(4) Have the Note use a different term ("gbox" or "surface")

(5) Forget the whole thing and move on.

I'm torn between 4 and 5, myself.   I'm not sure I could live with 2 or 
3 (in terms of dying of embarassment).   In favor of 5 is the fact that 
I've already spent all the time I had to write this Note arguing about 
it the past two weeks.

         -- Sandro


>     Andy
>
>
Received on Friday, 27 September 2013 12:45:57 UTC

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