Re: the choice of the term "layer"

On 02-05-2012 18:15, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-05-02 at 17:44 +0200, Dan Brickley wrote:
>> 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...
>
> I agree.    Unfortunately, when I looked at the title "RDF Layers" with
> fresh eyes, I immediately thought of the SemWeb layer cake.  :-(   So, I
> put in "Data", sometimes calling them "Data Layers" to help with that.
>
> In the draft I currently have it flagged as an open issue, with some
> other possibilities listed.  The one I woke up with this morning was
> "spaces".   Conceptually it's close enough to tuple spaces that I think
> the similarity in names would probably be okay.  (I just learned what
> Linda was named after...!  Who knew...?)

"Space" would be acceptable for me. Vague enough :-).
Guus

>
> (Downside to "space" is that is start with "s", so quads are (S,P,O,S)
> which is annoying.)
>
>     -- Sandro
>
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2012 16:17:56 UTC