 |
 |
"Richard Wallis" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Your are not the only one who is looking for a better term for what is > being created - maybe we should hold a competition to come up with one. A "named graph" gets thrown around a lot, and even though this is technically correct, it's neither nice nor sexy. In my past a "bucket" was much used, as you can easily thrown things in or take it out (as opposed to the more terminal record being set), however people have a problem with the conceptual size of said bucket, which more or less summarizes why this term is so hard to pin down. I have, however, seen some revert the old RDBMS world of "rows", as they talk about properties on the same line, just thinking the line to be more flexible than what it used to be, but we'll see if it sticks around. Personally I think the problem is that people *like* the idea of a closed little silo that is perfectly contained, no matter if it is technically true or not, and therefore futile. This is also why, I think, it's been so hard to explain to more traditional developers the amazing advantages you get through true semantic modelling; people find it hard to let go of a pattern that has helped them so in the past. Breaking the meta data out of the wonderful constraints of a MARC record? FRBR/RDA will never fly, at least not until they all realize that the constraints are real and that they truly and utterly constrain not just the meta data but the future field of librarying ... :) Regards, Alex