- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:09:21 -0400
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <502E4281.60501@openlinksw.com>
On 8/17/12 8:39 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote: > On 08/17/2012 08:21 AM, 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 >> 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 . >> > > If we're opening the can-of-worms about naming, I think the most clear > name is "feed". That seems to be what the non-RDF Web industry uses > (eg [1]). I find it a slightly ugly word, but when we're talking > about interoperability situations, it seems to be simple and > non-confusing. That depends on the target audience. In my eyes (and experience) the target audience to win over is the broader DBMS community. From that community to tap into a massive collection of expertise and experience that will ultimately appreciate how RDF addresses an old challenge, in a contemporary way. Terminology remains the prime hindrance re. the above. Many RDBMS experts (e.g., company founders and lead technologists of many major RDBMS products) that I encounter still find RDF terminology so alien that they completely miss the fact that it provides a solution to their biggest problems re. data access and integration. > When it's just you and your own data, it may be odd to separate your > data into different "feeds", but when you're imagining that you're > providing your data to the world, it makes a lot of sense. Feeds is a term that's associated with RSS, blogosphere, and Web 2.0. Folks that fit into those profiles are anti anything that carries the letters R-D-F, so adopting "Feeds" won't get us anywhere, bar wasting time we don't have. This is why the DBMS route is more beneficial since the same anti R-D-F folks are grappling (indirectly) with the very problems that RDF solves albeit via RDBMS and so called NoSQL products. > When I started implementing the federated phonebook cases, I found my > variable names, etc, started migrating from "space" to "feed". Well that is a feed :-) > > -- Sandro > > [1] > http://support.google.com/merchants/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=188494#US > > > > > > > > -- 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 13:08:01 UTC