- From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pchampin@liris.cnrs.fr>
- Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 00:23:53 +0100
- To: "nathan@webr3.org" <nathan@webr3.org>
- CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, "public-rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 02/24/2011 12:12 AM, Nathan wrote: > Hi Pierre-Antoine, > > Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote: >> I'm not sure about "graph literal" proposed by Nathan, as the term >> "literal" is already used in RDF, and that it may cause much confusion, >> IMHO... > > Indeed, although I did specifically mention "graph literal" to equate to > quote-graphs/graph-literals in N3 and hopefully convey what I mean > correctly, and also because if we are taking this abstract graph to be > the set of triples, like the number denoted by '8' or the letter denoted > by 'A', then that would be a literal in RDF terms, would it not? I would, most definitely. My intent was not to imply that the term is inappropriate, only that it was risky -- because the similarity may not be obvious to RDF newcomers... > finally, I'd hoped it would clear up some of the misunderstandings over > the different things people refer to when using terms like named graph > and graph literal (or quoted graph) so that people may see it's not an > either or thing, but rather they are two distinct concepts and we need > them both. agreed > That said, I don't actually mind what terms are used at all for the two > concepts, I just hope that the RDF concepts cater for both of them, and > that they are both acknowledged and prove to be widely understood (and > understandable) should they be adopted :) agreed again, but the choice of the term may help to make the concept adopted :) pa > Best, > > Nathan >
Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2011 23:24:25 UTC