- From: Thomas Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 22:06:34 -0400
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 08:11:03AM -0400, Sandro Hawke wrote: > 2. We briefly apologize for the confusing names +1 > -- a Named Graph is > not actually an RDF Graph that happens to have been given a name -- > it's a fundamentally different thing that *can* be given a name. Finding the right words to explain this will be a challenge, but I think it is important to do so, especially if it will not be covered in the Primer. > (It's what Pat likes to call a surface and I like to call a g-box.) It would be nice if the note could recap some of the thinking behind this, as per [1]. > When people say "graph" in the RDF world, they are often talking > about Named Graphs, not RDF Graphs, as evidenced by them talking > about "putting things into the graph", or otherwise changing them. Yes, this point needs to be acknowledged somewhere - and explained. > Strawpoll: If I wrote this up for a WG note, in a style you liked, > would you support the WG publishing it? +1 Tom [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Nov/0305.html -- Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
Received on Friday, 27 September 2013 02:07:45 UTC