Hi,
I would have said container, but the meaning gived to this term in ldp
draft's W3C is different by the actual concept of context in Marmotta.
Though I think that there are intersections between context and ldp
container, conceptually they are two ways to assemble triples, the
latter introduces some strong constraints for membership and is the
medium to create and access resources.
So,
for the moment +1 for graph.
Cheers,
Raffaele.
On 06/04/2013 07:07 PM, Jakob Frank wrote:
+1 for raising this issue.
I'm happy with both, "context" and "graph" (with a slight preference
for "context" as this is the term used in the Sesame API)
namedGraph, quad, kspace, etc... I don't like...
Best
Jakob
On 4 June 2013 18:33, Sergio Fernández <wik...@apache.org> wrote:
Hi,
in Marmotta we inherited from the underlined RDF API (Sesame OpenRDF) the
term "context" for referring to triple containers with their own URI.
There are several other terms for referring same thing: graph, named graph,
quad, etc; actually in the former KiWi were known as "knowledge spaces".
Moreover we have a terminology issue with the statement @context in LDPath.
So, since we are still in the moment where such core concepts could be
renamed, do you thing we should do it?
Personally I'd be happy to switch to graph, but I'm also fine with the
current term.
Thanks in advance for your comments.
Cheers,
--
Sergio Fernández
