Re: [All] Proposal: RDF Graph Identification

On 17/08/12 13:21, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> 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

The whole idea of aligning to "data spaces" does not work for me as I'd 
expect it to be a collection of graphs with ontology mappings if taken 
from the whole adapter-"pay-as-you-go" meta meme in current database 

(for anyone lost here :

> 2. RDF data source names.

There is something worth considering in "source";

RDF source
RDF data source
Triple source
Graph source

> 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:

I agree about the desirability of alignment but getting too close has 
it's own issues.

> 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 .


Received on Friday, 17 August 2012 12:35:55 UTC