- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 21:28:01 -0500
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Apr 26, 2012, at 12:04 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > On 26 Apr 2012, at 17:13, Sandro Hawke wrote: >>> SUGGESTION: >>> "G is called the default graph. The pairs (<ui>, Gi) are named graphs." >> >> I have to say (again) that I'm not okay with calling something a "named >> graph", especially formally, when it isn't named and isn't a graph (or >> RDF Graph). > > But they *are* named (except formally), and they *are* graphs (except formally). > > People have called them “named graphs” for years. It's on Wikipedia, it's in hundreds of books, in thousands of articles, and tens of thousands of web pages. The genie might already be out of the bottle. We serve the community well by standardizing established practice. But these, um, authorities all disagree. The Wikipedia article seems to suggest that naming a graph is done by http resolving to a graph document, for example. That has squat to do with SPARQL datastores. Some of the authorities (including the SPARQL specs themselves) reference the old article which I helped co-author; some of these follow the terminology used there, others use it entirely differently or ignore it altogether. The meaning of 'named graph' even changes between implementations of the same specifications. In a situation like this, established practice needs to be fixed, not emulated. Pat > >> I don't think wordsmithing this section will productive until/unless we >> have a shared understand of what we actually want to say, though. > > +1 > > Richard > > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Sunday, 29 April 2012 02:28:39 UTC