Re: RDF-ISSUE-110 (g-box): A proper term for the concept formerly known as ?g-box?? [RDF Concepts]

On 11/20/12 10:47 AM, Thomas Baker wrote:
> If RDF Concepts has called them RDF Sources, those two paragraphs
> somewhere should say something about this choice of terms.  Was it just a coin
> toss?  Even if the group cannot agree on anything more than a name, the reasons
> why this was so would surely be of interest -- more, at any rate, than just
> "for more information, see public-rdf-wg".
As a supporter of "RDF source" let me try to contribute some insight 
re., virtues of the phrase.

Ultimately, RDF is data realm subject matter.
In the realm of structured data, actual data representation boils down 
to explicit entity relationship semantics -- expressed using an entity 
relationship model.
Entity relationship models are represented using graphs (on paper or in 
digital for e.g., RDF document content).
Net effect of all of the above is that RDF provides an intensional 
dimension to process of data representation.
So RDF is still just about data representation.

In the broader realm of database technology dominated by relational 
databases, its been long established that data access by reference is 
effectively driven by data sources and data source names. Thus, to cut a 
long story short, RDF ends up with a nice segue to the broader realm of 
database technology. An added bonus is that is also address the nascent 
intensional dimension which has always been stifled by false starts that 
date back to deductive databases all the way up to object and 
object-relational databases.

Above else, we want to use terminology that makes RDF endearing to a 
broad spectrum data access, integration,  and management practitioners, 
something that's been a mercurial pursuit for over 12 years now.

I hope this helps.



Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web:
Personal Weblog:
Twitter/ handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile:
LinkedIn Profile:

Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2012 16:20:13 UTC