Re: (proposal) was Re: defn of Named Graph

On 9/26/13 10:06 PM, Thomas Baker wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 08:11:03AM -0400, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>> 2. We briefly apologize for the confusing names
> +1

+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

Kingsley
>
> Tom
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Nov/0305.html
>


-- 

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