Re: Generic "Graph" Use Cases

Hi Richard,

final mini-mini attempt:

Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>> There's a very critical detail here, the need to talk about a g-box, and the need to talk about a g-snap
> 
> I don't understand why that matters and why the needs for the two are supposedly different. So I asked:

If I rewrite to:

'There's a very critical detail here, the need to talk about a 
named-g-box, and the need to talk about a a distinct set of triples'

does that help?

>> Just to be sure we're on the same page in this discussion, can you give an example for “talking about a g-box” and one for “talking about a g-snap”, in particular one where the distinction matters?
> 
> Six messages and thousands of words later, I still didn't make any progress understanding why you differentiate between “talking about a g-box” and “talking about a g-snap”.
> 
> The VoID example talks neither about g-boxes nor g-snaps as far as I can tell, it talks about void:Datasets which are different (and intentionally fuzzy on the question of mutability).
> 
> The TriG example doesn't help me to understand the difference between “talking about a g-box” and “talking about a g-snap” because it's unrelated to the g-box example.

Okay, later in the week when I get some free time I'll try and do some 
proper examples, and run them past some others for peer review before 
sending through, if that's okay / would help.

> Sorry to have wasted your time.

Likewise, hopefully the distinction we be clear at some point, or it'll 
be deduced that there is no distinction (and if there is no distinction, 
then no need to have all of g-box, g-snap & g-text as concepts, only the 
final two).

Best,

Nathan

Received on Monday, 7 March 2011 13:05:39 UTC