Re: Graphs and Being and Time

Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
> 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 :)

great, the phrase "in violent agreement" springs to mind then, which is 
music to my ears.

Thanks for the reply,

Nathan

Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2011 23:33:19 UTC