- From: Thomas Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
- Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:42:41 -0400
- To: Charles Greer <cgreer@marklogic.com>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, W3C RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 09:58:07AM -0700, Charles Greer wrote: > >Perhaps we should not define a graph to BE a set, but rather define it to be > >any RDF document or structure which *parses* to a set. So we keep the idea > >of the set-based abstract syntax, but we morph the terminology to be more in > >line with the way most of the world actually speaks and thinks. -0 Defining graphs as documents would confusingly contradict a decade of explanations, yet the word "graph" itself would remain as scary and mysterious as ever. If we want to use more approachable terminology, how about "RDF pages", which sound alot more like the familiar "Web pages" or "wiki pages"? Tom -- Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
Received on Friday, 17 August 2012 19:43:21 UTC