Re: RDF-ISSUE-110 (g-box): A proper term for the concept formerly known as “g-box”? [RDF Concepts]

On 11/9/12 7:33 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> On 9 Nov 2012, at 12:09, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> At this juncture is there agreement about the following:
>>
>> 1. g-box -- an RDF document (purpose: denotes RDF source)
> There are mutable containers/sources of RDF that are not document-like, so I don't think that RDF Document is a great choice of term here. “Document” has many many connotations that don't apply here.

RDF source then? Even RDF Data Source to be more precise?
>
>> 2. g-text -- graph representation syntax
> RDF Concepts never talks about g-texts.

Okay, scratch that.

>
>> 3. g-snap -- graph instance.
> Formally, “RDF graph”. Given that RDF graphs are abstract mathematical concepts, it's probably fair enough to call the particular one that you just loaded into your system an “RDF graph instance”, although I don't see what that adds over the simpler term.

I think outside this community "RDF graph instance" will help a lot with 
regards to comprehension.
>
>> So we access RDF documents at an address, transform content, and then work with graph instances.
> *Some* g-boxes are RDF documents that can be accessed at an address. Others aren't, for example the “slots” in a graph store.

It's a little complicated when we add graph stores (or full blown 
database engines) to the mix. For instance, the SPARQL protocol does 
enable you access triples associated with a specific named graph via an 
address (URL), so you still end up with the notion of an "RDF Data 
Source" or "RDF Source".  A SPARQL protocol URL is still an HTTP URI, so 
we still end up with indirection (FROM clause and GRAPH options enable 
this) abstracting RDF data access. Of course, I understand that all RDF 
graph stores don't necessarily support the SPARQL protocol etc..

Kingsley

>
> Best,
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>> Kingsley
>>>
>>>   
>>>> --AZ
>>>>
>>>> Le 09/11/2012 11:34, RDF Working Group Issue Tracker a écrit :
>>>>> RDF-ISSUE-110 (g-box): A proper term for the concept formerly known as “g-box”? [RDF Concepts]
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/110
>>>>>
>>>>> Raised by: Richard Cyganiak
>>>>> On product: RDF Concepts
>>>>>
>>>>> The concept that we call “g-box” is extremely useful in explaining how RDF works in the real world, and I plan to use it *informatively* in the Introduction of RDF Concepts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Should the term in the text be “g-box”, or do we slap some other label on that concept?
>>>>>
>>>>> The text is here:
>>>>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#change-over-time
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Antoine Zimmermann
>>>> ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol
>>>> École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne
>>>> 158 cours Fauriel
>>>> 42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2
>>>> France
>>>> Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03
>>>> Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66
>>>> http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>


-- 

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