- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:21:39 -0400
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <502E3753.2090602@openlinksw.com>
On 8/17/12 7:37 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > Like Steve, the name "space" does not work for me either because of, > for example, "data spaces". We aren't naming from a clean sheet. > > "container" works for me in the figure. Something with the idea of > containing (like 'slot' graph store). "box"? What about any of the following: 1. RDF data spaces 2. RDF data source names. Backdrop: The terminology alignment between RDF + SPARQL and the broader realm of DBMS technology (esp. because of SPARQL) is ultimately a win-win. In the RDBMS realm (as you and Steve know) we have: RDBMS - Relational Tables (while RDF stores are basically Relational Property Graphs) Tables -- Named Relations comprised of n-tuples Data Source Names (DSNs) -- for ODBC, JDBC etc. access scoped to Tables/Views re. data access by reference pattern Views -- for all intents an purposes this aligns well with backward-chained inference Triggers -- for all intents an purposes this aligns well with forward-chained inference . -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Friday, 17 August 2012 12:20:05 UTC