On Sep 27, 2013 4:07 AM, "Thomas Baker" <tom@tombaker.org> wrote: > > 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 +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 05:10:36 UTC