- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 22:22:25 -0400
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 23:13 -0400, Manu Sporny wrote: > > * Really, really don't like all of the new terminology that the group > is creating - having both 'graph' and 'layer' doesn't help simplify > this stuff to Web developers. Use a base word, like 'graph' and > modify it for the different types of graphs - graph snapshot, > graph container, etc. That's very important feedback. The RDF-WG seems to feel strongly that it shouldn't change the terms it used in 2004, but perhaps it needs more data. I've been leaning the past two days toward: g-snap ==> RDF Graph g-box ==> (RDF) (data) space but I hear you suggesting: g-snap ==> graph snapshot g-box ==> graph container which certain helps us go with the grain -- it makes it very clear that 'graph' is glosses over certain distinctions. I kind of like that. > * We give human-readable HTTP URLs to graphs all the time - aren't > these > "named graphs" called Web pages containing RDFa and/or Microdata? Note I was using "graph" in the technical/pedantic sense, named g-snap. And no, Web pages are not g-snaps. Here, I just wrote a new and improved guide to the terminology, pointing out the 1-bit differences: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Containers_of_Triples So, maybe these should all be "graphs" and we can use adjectives to clarify which kind we mean in those situations where it matters. -- Sandro
Received on Saturday, 5 May 2012 02:22:34 UTC