W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > April 2011

Re: Was GraphLiteral, now?

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 17:29:44 +0200
Cc: RDFA Working Group <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <9F1EE4E4-F2C4-4AF0-84DD-6EF03446527F@w3.org>
To: nathan@webr3.org
I would say a triple set is neutral enough at this point.

You should still put a note into the document saying that the terminology may change if the RDF WG settles on something...



On Apr 22, 2011, at 17:24 , Nathan wrote:

> Hi All, Ivan,
> I'm editing the RDF API document at the minute, and trying to come up with a non offensive but still descriptive name for what was previously called GraphLiteral.
> Would you be prepared to allow the usage of any of the following:
> - QuotedGraph
> - TripleSet
> - EmbeddedGraph
> I understand the hesitance to use GraphLiteral, but I'm also hesitant to use G-Box since it's starting to take on new meaning in the RDF WG to refer to a named set of triples which change over time (a Named-G-Box) rather than anonymous "triple container" as was originally intended - thus it could easily end up just being another IRI, or having a required name, both of which are different to this more general concept which is basically just allowing a Graph to sit in one of the triple slots.
> Best,
> Nathan

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Friday, 22 April 2011 15:28:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:51 UTC