- From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 00:49:28 +0200
- To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- CC: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Attempt at consensus summary (among this small group):
g-snap: "abstract RDF graph"
g-box: "RDF graph container"
g-text: "RDF graph serialization"
Guus
On 20-07-2011 17:25, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
> On 7/20/2011 11:11 AM, Steve Harris wrote:
>> On 2011-07-20, at 15:55, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>
>>> The agenda for today says:
>>>
>>>> g-snap: "RDF graph"
>>>
>>> I can live with this, but I'd be much happier if we also came up with a
>>> retronymic clarifying expansion, like "(abstract) RDF Graph", or
>>> "(mathematical) RDF Graph" to use when we needed to be sure to exclude
>>> all the loose usages.
>>
>> Agreed.
>
> And me too.
>
>>>> g-box: "RDF graph resource"?
>>>
>>> -1 on "resource" -- in RDF, everything is a resource, certainly
>>> including g-snaps.
>>>
>>> There's nothing I really like here, but I could live with "graph
>>> container" or "triplestore".
>>
>> "Triplestore" is often loosely used to also mean quad store, or
>> named-graph store, so it's maybe not ideal.
>
> Agree with this. I like "graph container". ("Like".)
>
>>>> g-text:<no name>? "RDF graph serialization/representation"?
>>>
>>> I'm happy with "RDF graph serialization". -1 on "representation",
>>> since the representation relationship is so vague and used in so many
>>> other ways in RDF.
>>
>> Agreed.
>
> Yup.
>
> Lee
>
>> - Steve
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 20 July 2011 22:50:41 UTC