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

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

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 09:13:46 -0400
Message-ID: <5245848A.8010508@openlinksw.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 9/27/13 8:45 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> 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. 

+1 for (3).

Nothing wrong with admitting errors, on reflection.


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen







Received on Friday, 27 September 2013 13:14:12 UTC

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