- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 09:07:14 +0100
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 2011-07-21, at 11:52, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > On 21/07/11 09:40, Dan Brickley wrote: >> On 21 July 2011 09:27, Andy Seaborne<andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> wrote: >>> On 21/07/11 01:08, Ian Davis wrote: >>>> >>>> We recognise that "graph" has subtly different semantics >>>> between sparql and rdf concepts so let's avoid that term. >>> >>> It would be helpful to if you could point to text in the SPARQL specs that >>> leads to that conclusion. It should be changed because a graph is value and >>> used as such in SPARQL, both in query and update. As such , the changes are >>> editorial and not a cause for a SPARQL second last call. >> >> If the terminology can be unified and 'graph' kept in our technical >> vocabulary, there are significant benefits for RDF. >> >> The word 'triple' seems to alienate many people, whereas the wider >> tech scene is lately abuzz with all kinds of talk of 'graphs': >> >> - the social graph >> - interest graphs >> - graph databases > > Agreed. > > I have found that drawing graphs (= nodes and arcs) helps explain "linking" to people. Turtle, laid out as records, sometimes does not make the connection that using the URI again elsewhere is the connection (arc, triple) usage. This use of "graph" seems to work for most. +1 Though I've said things like "yeah... a graph in the mathematical sense, not as in a chart" more time than I care to count :) - Steve -- Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK +44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Friday, 22 July 2011 08:07:45 UTC