- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 16:18:07 +0000
- To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
- CC: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Antoine Zimmermann wrote: > Yes, and I'm putting this resolution forward to feed the fresh > discussion, and as a proposal to resolve the issue: > > PROPOSAL1: the notion informally known as "g-box" will be called "graph > container". > > Alternative: > > PROPOSAL2: the notion informally known as "g-box" will be called "RDF > container". > > Alternative (cf. Kingsley's email on the topic): > > PROPOSAL3: the notion informally known as "g-box" will be called "RDF > document". > > Alternative (cf. Kingsley's other email on the topic): > > PROPOSAL3: the notion informally known as "g-box" will be called "RDF > source". > > Personal vote: > -1 for RDF document. Mostly shrug on any of the remaining 3 options but > a slight preference for one of the first 2 choices. +1 for RDF Source, as RDF Container may be confusing in the context of LDP, RDF Document indicates the RDF is static, and graph container doesn't indicate that the things has changing states.
Received on Friday, 9 November 2012 16:18:50 UTC