- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 02:37:19 -0600
- To: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>, nathan@webr3.org
+1 from me on "RDF Source". FWIW, referring to my earlier response to Richard on blank nodes, this can also serve the role of my old terminology of "surface", so that we can say that bnodes (not bnode IDs, but actual blank nodes) are local to the RDF source in which they occur, i.e., no bnode can be in (graphs contained in) two different sources. This would clean up the current mess about the distinction between unions and merges of RDF graphs, and generally make more sense of bnodes. Pat On Nov 9, 2012, at 10:18 AM, Nathan wrote: > Antoine Zimmermann wrote: >> Yes, and I'm putting this resolution forward to feed the fresh discussion, and as a proposal to resolve the issue: >> PROPOSAL1: the notion informally known as "g-box" will be called "graph container". >> Alternative: >> PROPOSAL2: the notion informally known as "g-box" will be called "RDF container". >> Alternative (cf. Kingsley's email on the topic): >> PROPOSAL3: the notion informally known as "g-box" will be called "RDF document". >> Alternative (cf. Kingsley's other email on the topic): >> PROPOSAL3: the notion informally known as "g-box" will be called "RDF source". >> Personal vote: >> -1 for RDF document. Mostly shrug on any of the remaining 3 options but a slight preference for one of the first 2 choices. > > +1 for RDF Source, as RDF Container may be confusing in the context of LDP, RDF Document indicates the RDF is static, and graph container doesn't indicate that the things has changing states. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Monday, 12 November 2012 08:37:55 UTC