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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ruben Verborgh [mailto:ruben.verborgh@ugent.be]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 10:03 AM
> To: Markus Lanthaler
> Cc: public-hydra@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Moving forward with ISSUE-30 (IRI template expansion)
> 
> > 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?
> 
> Ha, I'm not the naming police,
> but I'd be very cautious of referring to the Turtle spec.
> There is no official thing such as "simplified Turtle", so we'd have to define it
> ourselves anyway.
> 
> One more suggestion:
> - TypedRepresentation (because we distinguish between literals and URIs)
> 
> > Removing "Expansion" will allow us, and others, to use this in other
> contexts as well.
> 
> 
> For consistency reasons, it could be interesting to find things with the same
> suffixes.
> For instance, ValueOnlyRepresentation and TypedRepresentation are clearly
> related to each other; this clue can be helpful for usage.
> 

+1 (I agree, it is 'interesting' - and it's actually easier to find those interesting consistencies if they are made to be lexically contiguous by left-justifying the names, i.e. by using instead 'RepresentationValueOnly' and 'RepresentationTyped').

> Best,
> 
> Ruben

Received on Tuesday, 19 August 2014 21:57:52 UTC