Re: strawman draft of "RDF Data Layers and Datasets"

On 2 May 2012 16:47, Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl> wrote:
> On 02-05-2012 15:42, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>> I took the liberty of moving forward with drafting a possible spec, so
>> we have something to look at.   Several sections are empty, but I'm
>> pretty happy with what's there.  The example is that same as on the
>> "Layers" page on the wiki.
>
> Terminology issue (I would by no means want to disturb any arising
> consensus).
>
> I don't think the term "layer" will do the required trick. I cannot but
> associate it with vertical relations. The term we choose should have both
> vertical and horizontal connotations. I'd prefer "box": boxes can be put
> next to each other or on top of each other.
>
> Feel free to ignore for the moment.

RDF data can also be stitched together into a single flat thing, like a quilt.

The main reason I like 'layer' (and surface) is that data integration
is RDF's defining and most under-sold feature, and this metaphor does
highlight that feature...

Dan

Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2012 15:45:08 UTC