- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 10:04:21 -0500
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Thanks, Sandro. I was careful to avoid the term "named graph" everywhere I could. I used it only where there was some formal, established meaning (namely, the service description vocabulary). I am using RDF Abstract Graph wherever possible. sd:NamedGraph pairs the _current_ RDF Abstract Graph with the (dcterms:identifier-ish) sd:name, whose value is used when SPARQL INSERTing. -Tim On Jan 5, 2012, at 9:33 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote: > On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 08:34 +0000, Graham Klyne wrote: >> >> (It's kind of dated now; I use the term "formulae", from Notation3, to >> mean >> roughly what we mean by named graphs.) > > And please note that the term "named graph" is deeply ambiguous, having > completely different meanings (like night and day, or more like "night" > and "gray") between the original paper than introduced the term and > current SPARQL usage, and neither one is actually the intuitive meaning > that an RDF graph is given a globally unambiguous URI name. I avoid > the term like the plague. > > (I'm trying to swap in this prov-o work, as much as I can, but haven't > gotten very far yet.) > > -- Sandro > > > >
Received on Thursday, 5 January 2012 15:07:27 UTC