RE: Moving forward with ISSUE-30 (IRI template expansion)

On 14 Aug 2014 at 23:28, McBennett, Pat wrote:
> Markus Lanthaler wrote on 12 Aug 2014 at 15:52:
>> The thing we are discussing here would look as follows:
>> 
>>    [
>>      a IriTemplate ;
>>      template "http://example.com/users/{id}" ;
>>      variableRepresentation hydra:ExplicitRepresentation ;
>>      ...
>>    ]
> 
> Yeah, sorry about the capitalization - my bad. But now that
> I'm back on track, I think I prefer 'variableExpansion' now
> instead of 'expansionMethod', so we get:
> 
>    [
>      a IriTemplate ;
>      template "http://example.com/users/{id}" ;
>      variableExpansion hydra:NoExpansion ;
>      mapping [
>        a IriTemplateMapping ;
>        variable "id" ;
>        property ex:userId .
>      ]
>    ]
>
> ...or...
> 
>    [
>      a IriTemplate ;
>      template "http://example.com/users/{id}" ;
>      variableExpansion hydra:SimplifiedTurtleExpansion ;
>      mapping [
>        a IriTemplateMapping ;
>        variable "id" ;
>        property ex:userId .
>      ]
>    ]
>
> Or alternatively, 'hydra:ExpansionNone' and

Honestly, I found this naming confusing at best. The *template* will always
be expanded. Variables on the other hand, are not "expanded" in the same
sense. Assuming the values of variables are RDF literals, we just include
different components thereof. "NoExpansion" means we just use the lexical
representation and ignore the datatype and the optional language tag.
"SimplifiedTurtleExpansion" means we will use all components and serialize
it in a Turtle-like syntax.

Taking that into consideration, could you live with calling the property
"variableRepresentation"?

What about calling its two values "SimplifiedTurtle" and
"LexicalRepresentation", "BasicRepresentation", "ValueRepresentation",
"ValueOnly", or "OnlyValue". I could live with any of these but find
"LexicalRepresentation" a bit too RDF-heavy given that mostly non-RDF apps
will use it.

Ruben?


> 'hydra:ExpansionSimplifiedTurtle' (as I generally recommend
left-justifying
> names because it groups related things together alphabetically. But some
> people don't like it at all, so it's just a suggestion).

Removing "Expansion" will allow us, and others, to use this in other
contexts as well.


>> In my opinion it's too little to justify an extremely ugly and hard to
debug
>> result
[...]
>> ... but apparently I'm the only one with that concern. So, what about the
>> alternative to align this closer to Turtle, i.e., also requiring the
angle brackets
>> where Turtle requires them and calling the representation
SimplifiedTurtle
>> (simplified because we don't support prefixes and escaping)?
>> 
> 
> +1 - I still think this proposal is worth the cost you illustrate above
over creating
> something completely new.

OK. I give up :-) Since we have an extensible mechanism, we can always add
other forms later if this turns out to cause problems in practice.



--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

Received on Friday, 15 August 2014 16:07:01 UTC