new names for g-box, g-snap

On 08/17/2012 09:09 AM, Steve Harris wrote:
> 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:)

I think you're right, and it makes me miserable.    It seems unlikely 
we'll come up with any terms that actually resonate with people and are 

My favorite idea here is to call g-snaps "graph states".    People 
deeply understand that a "state" is an abstract mathematical concept, so 
when you say you're changing a graph state, they know you really mean 
you're changing the graph from one state to another.

Then I'm not sure if a g-box gets called a "graph container" or just a 
"graph".   Calling it a "graph container" is nice, because it makes it 
more clear that "graph" is ambiguous.   But then it seems like we ought 
to call g-snap "graph container state".

(But I know, I know, this would betray all the people who've actually 
been following the guidance of the 2004 spec.   It would have lots of 
its own problems.)

      -- Sandro

Received on Friday, 17 August 2012 13:33:36 UTC