Re: A rant about the terminology debate

On 8/24/12 2:00 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> On 24 Aug 2012, at 12:32, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> How would you map g-box, g-snap, and g-text in formal relational DBMS terminology? Such a mapping would help many. Basically, mapping to relations, sets of tuples, and notation.
> The SQL spec calls them:
> g-box: "site" or "variable" (e.g., a base table is a site that can hold an instance of a table value)

Here relational database products muddied the waters a little.

You have a Table being a Relation. A database being a collection of 
Relations (really a system capable of managing one of more Relations). 
Tables can be denoted by Names, so you end up with a Database with many 

Back in the day, desktop databases like FoxPRO, DBASE, Paradox etc.. 
treated the Database and the Table as one i.e., they used either term to 
denote Relations.
> g-snap: "value" (e.g., the state of a base table at any given time is a "table value")
> g-text: "SQL-statement", composed of various kinds of "expressions"

RDF is specific about the tuples being 3-tuples. Its also adds an 
intensional (open world) dimension rather than being extensional (closed 
world), solely. Thus, the differences between the relational DBMS realm 
and RDF aren't as wide many assume. This is why mapping terminology to 
existing relational terminology is ultimately a good thing for RDF re. 
mass appreciation, comprehension, and adoption.

> Probably doesn't help too much.
> Best,
> Richard



Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web:
Personal Weblog:
Twitter/ handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile:
LinkedIn Profile:

Received on Friday, 24 August 2012 18:59:13 UTC