Re: A radical proposal.

On 08/20/2012 12:26 PM, Thomas Baker wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 11:30:23AM -0400, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>> +1.   Yes, let's be okay with the term "graph" (even RDF Graph)
>> being fuzzy .    And yes, we should probably have terminology for
>> use when we don't want to be fuzzy, like "abstract graph".
> +1 - I like where this discussion is going.

Another big benefit of this is that the term "named graph" makes a whole 
lot more sense.  With this proposal, linguistically speaking, the 
"graph" might be an abstract graph (g-snap) *or* a graph source (g-box). 
       (That happens to line up with what I think is a sensible 
technical design.)

       -- Sandro

Received on Monday, 20 August 2012 18:29:33 UTC