- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 16:36:40 +0100
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- CC: RDFA Working Group <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Cheers, TripleSet it is for now, it actually reads quite well. Additionally I've added a note to say: "This interface may be renamed, marked as optional or even removed entirely in future revisions of this specification." Best, Nathan Ivan Herman wrote: > I would say a triple set is neutral enough at this point. > > You should still put a note into the document saying that the terminology may change if the RDF WG settles on something... > > Thx > > Ivan > > On Apr 22, 2011, at 17:24 , Nathan wrote: > >> Hi All, Ivan, >> >> I'm editing the RDF API document at the minute, and trying to come up with a non offensive but still descriptive name for what was previously called GraphLiteral. >> >> Would you be prepared to allow the usage of any of the following: >> - QuotedGraph >> - TripleSet >> - EmbeddedGraph >> >> I understand the hesitance to use GraphLiteral, but I'm also hesitant to use G-Box since it's starting to take on new meaning in the RDF WG to refer to a named set of triples which change over time (a Named-G-Box) rather than anonymous "triple container" as was originally intended - thus it could easily end up just being another IRI, or having a required name, both of which are different to this more general concept which is basically just allowing a Graph to sit in one of the triple slots. >> >> Best, >> >> Nathan > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 > PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html > FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf > > > > > > >
Received on Friday, 22 April 2011 15:37:47 UTC