- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 11:42:03 +0000
- To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
- Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 9 Nov 2012, at 11:14, Antoine Zimmermann wrote: > We had a formal resolution about the names of the g-stuff: > > http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-10-12#resolution_1 I note that this WG has consistently ignored that resolution for more than a year, and kept using the term g-box. This indicates that we did, in fact, not have consensus on the issue. Since then, we have resolved not to normatively use any of the g-* concepts beside g-snap (RDF Graph). What used to be a fundamental design question is now merely an editorial issue within informative text in a single spec, RDF Concepts. Furthermore, there is now a complete proposal for the section of text that actually uses the term. I think this changes the situation enough to warrant a bit of fresh discussion. Best, Richard > > > --AZ > > Le 09/11/2012 11:34, RDF Working Group Issue Tracker a écrit : >> RDF-ISSUE-110 (g-box): A proper term for the concept formerly known as “g-box”? [RDF Concepts] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/110 >> >> Raised by: Richard Cyganiak >> On product: RDF Concepts >> >> The concept that we call “g-box” is extremely useful in explaining how RDF works in the real world, and I plan to use it *informatively* in the Introduction of RDF Concepts. >> >> Should the term in the text be “g-box”, or do we slap some other label on that concept? >> >> The text is here: >> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#change-over-time >> >> >> >> > > -- > Antoine Zimmermann > ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol > École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne > 158 cours Fauriel > 42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2 > France > Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03 > Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66 > http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/ >
Received on Friday, 9 November 2012 11:42:37 UTC