- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 10:20:32 -0400
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <504A02B0.1070604@openlinksw.com>
On 9/7/12 9:50 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote: > It would be kind of nice to call them "private genids", to parallel > public genids and IRIs, but I guess that's too far from tradition. > But whatever, I can live with the terminology you're using above. Take terminology already understood by RDBMS community. As I've stated in the past RDBMS terminology alignment is always a gain for RDF. Ultimately, RDF stores are about unleashing (or unveiling) the nascent (at best) intensional dimension of RDBMS technology. You have "sequences" and its from the SQL spec, as Richards already alluded to in his post. Discussing sequences with an RDBMS savvy audience will cost you nothing, doing it in usual blank nodes speak always has the potential to wreck your entire discussion. When all the terminology is lined up, it becomes really easy to demonstrate all the problems that RDF solves relative to conventional RDBMS challenges. Even the simple dump and reload of data, with RDF in the mix, becomes a killer demo. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Friday, 7 September 2012 14:20:56 UTC