- From: Arto Bendiken <arto.bendiken@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 17:18:11 +0200
- To: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Cc: RDFA Working Group <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: > Hi All, > > Just a small thought.. it dawned on me this morning that Graph or RDFGraph > may be a better / alternative name for DataStore - personally when I > mentally swap out all mentions of store for graph in examples, design and > text things feel that bit clearer > > graph.add(triple); > graph.merge(otherGraph); > document.data.graph; > serialize(graph); > graph.filter(myFilter); > > and so forth, it clearly separates the concepts of "Store" (somewhere to > store graphs and triples) and "Graph" (a set of triples, an RDF Graph), > further, graph is a common concept in the RDFa Core documentation, and all > RDF documentation which goes unrepresented in the RDFa API. > > Anyway, just a thought, I'm sure you get the idea - any opinions? +1 for this. In RDF.rb [1], we have repositories and graphs, where repositories contain one or more graphs, and those graphs then contain a set of triples each. So, I'd have to agree that "Graph" is a better name than "DataStore" for a container of triples. Best regards, Arto [1] http://rdf.rubyforge.org/ -- Arto Bendiken | @bendiken @datagraph
Received on Saturday, 30 October 2010 15:19:26 UTC