W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > July 2011

Re: Proposing new terms for g-snap and g-text

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 17:26:47 +0100
Message-ID: <4E148CC7.2080002@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
 From the telecon for the record:

(17:19:38) PatH: Current best guess for terminology is 'graph resource' 
for anything mutable that emits graph representations; 'graph' for 
snaps, and 'graph representation' for g-texts. THis fits with the REST 
terminology and allows the use of 'graph' for them all when people are 
being sloppy.

On 06/07/11 16:26, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> I took ACTION-64 in the joint RDF+SPARQL call to propose new terms for g-snap and g-text. I'm doing so in this message. (Opinion on g-box was that it needs more clarification or crisper definition before we can talk about a replacement term.)
>
> Best,
> Richard
>
>
>
> g-snap: Let's call it RDF Graph.
>
> “RDF graph” is a technical term with a precise definition that matches the meaning we want for g-snap.
>
> Some people use RDF Graph when they really mean g-box, but that clearly contradicts what's actually in the spec and doesn't seem to be *too* common.
>
>
>
> g-text: Let's avoid this concept.
>
> Back in the days when RDF/XML was the only game in town, the “g-text” concept made sense. But today it is difficult to maintain because what is a “g-text” to some, might just be a “text” to others; and the specific triples that you get from a given “g-text” depend on who does the parsing. Consider an HTML document. Is it a g-text? After all, it can serialize an RDF graph using RDFa markup. Or, these days, using Microdata markup. Or using eRDF or RDF/XML in comments or a number of other archaic schemes for shipping triples in HTML. Or using one of the quasi-canonical microformat-to-RDF mappings. Do you consider a document with media type application/rss+xml a g-text? What about application/powder+xml? What about text/plain, it could be N-Triples or not?
>
> So my advise is to avoid this term as much as possible.
>
> There are some useful related concepts which in my opinion should be used in preference over the g-text concept:
>
> “Serialization of an RDF graph [in RDF syntax XYZ]”
>
> “Representation of a resource [in RDF syntax XYZ]”
>
> These differ slightly from g-text because they are defined in relation to another entity (the graph and the resource, respectively). If used in the right context, these terms are accurate, well-defined and unambiguous.
>
Received on Wednesday, 6 July 2011 16:27:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:44 GMT