- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:09:47 +0100
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: W3C RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 2012-08-17, at 13:39, 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. 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. When I started implementing the federated phonebook cases, I found my variable names, etc, started migrating from "space" to "feed". With apologies for breaching the worm-can. To me "feed" has connotations of streaming from a server, which is at odds with use-cases like provenance, it's not too bad though. "Source" similarly, though that's maybe a bit more neutral. It's probably all academic, I'd be willing to bet that whatever this group decides, everyone outside it will continue to refer to them as "Graph URIs" - and please don't bother telling me all the ways in which that's incorrect :) - Steve -- Steve Harris, CTO Garlik, a part of Experian +44 7854 417 874 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93 Registered office: Landmark House, Experian Way, Nottingham, Notts, NG80 1ZZ
Received on Friday, 17 August 2012 13:10:46 UTC