Re: Errata Section 3.1 Triples - www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-rdf11-primer-20140225/#section-data-model [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Or just a "a set of triples forms a graph (of nodes and arcs)". Perhaps simply "is a graph"? No: a set of triples is a set of triples, it "is" a graph no more than it "is" a file on disk. Perhaps "is equivalent to"? There's a mathy word for when you have two models that have strictly the same underlying from (doing some operations on A is the same as going from a to B, doing the equivalent operations there, then going back to A again) - 'homeomorphic'? But you probably don't want to bother with that term. 

Incidentally, a given set of triples does not necessarily form a "connected graph". The problem is that this sentence is acting as a bridge introducing the fact that we deal with triples by way of graph theory. Informally, the triples form a graph with connections. Formally, they may form a graph with disjoint subgraphs.

On 15/07/2014, at 8:15 PM, Sam Pinkus wrote:

> In section 3.1 of www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-rdf11-primer-20140225/#section-data-model:
> 
> "We can visualize triples as a connected graph.". 
> 
> Should be
> 
> "A set of triples is called a graph. We can visualize a set of triples as a connected graph."
> 
> Or similar. I.e. you should establish that a set of triples is formally called a graph. Also might be nice to establish that an valid RDF doc is simply one or more triples - a graph. If that is in fact the case.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Sam.