- From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
- Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 10:43:03 -0400
- To: Bradley Allen <bradley.p.allen@gmail.com>
- CC: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
On Jul 3, 2011, at 6:31 AM, "Bradley Allen" <bradley.p.allen@gmail.com> wrote: > Gregg- I think this is nicely done and a great contribution to > Monday's call, but I have some comments on terminology as it relates > to section 3.1. > > In item 2 of the numbered list in that section, the phrase > "conceptional graph" appears; I assume that's a typo for the phrase > "conceptual graph", which is used in items 7 and 9. Yes, thanks. > That being said, I think the use of "conceptual graph" in this context > is problematic; that term is traditionally used to refer to the > formalism developed by John Sowa in his work on knowledge > representation, and implies a great deal more than I think you intend > here; see Berners-Lee's writing on the differences between the CG > formalism and RDF at http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/CG.html. I would > suggest replacing "conceptual graph" with "directed graph", which I > believe communicates your intent precisely without any unintended KR > baggage. - FWIW, BPA There's always a danger in minting terms that you might confuse the concept with something else; I'll take your suggestion, and use "directed graph". > On Saturday, July 2, 2011, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com> wrote: > > In order to try to reach some common ground, I put together a > JSON-LD requirements document [1]. My thought was that we could look > at the items point by point for the monday conference call to see > where we have common ground. > > > > I've doubtless left off some requirements that other's would like > to see; if there's something you'd like to add let me know and I'll > update the doc. > > > > Gregg > > > > [1] http://json-ld.org/requirements/latest/ > > > > > -- > Bradley P. Allen > http://bradleypallen.org Gregg
Received on Sunday, 3 July 2011 14:42:52 UTC