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

Hi Richard,

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 09:14:47PM +0000, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> > But it would be great if the WG could say a bit more about
> > this issue, somewhere other than in RDF Concepts, if only a paragraph or two
> > drawing out a few key points from that long and, at times, insightful
> > discussion.
> What I hear is a proposal that the WG do extra work for the benefit of those
> members who don't care enough to participate in discussions or scour the
> archives. Personally I have no interest in doing this work, although I
> understand the benefit of doing it.

I wouldn't put it that way.  My point is not about explaining things for the
benefit of WG members (though I agree that would help), but about reporting
back to readers of RDF 1.1 the results of the effort to "standardize a model
and semantics for multiple graphs and graphs stores" [1].   It would be a pity
if the insights surfaced in that discussion were to remain buried in the list

> > 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?  
> It's a proposal. Nothing is decided. If the term is adopted, it will be with
> the usual process: Someone proposed it, and no one hated it enough to
> threaten a formal objection.

I did not mean to imply that I think it is being decided by a coin toss but
that the inquiring reader will want to know.  My point was simply that once the
terminology -- whatever it may be -- is fixed, the choice of terms be
explained, somewhere, however minimally.  And FWIW I have already said that
"RDF Sources" is fine with me...



Tom Baker <>

Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2012 02:02:23 UTC