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

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

From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 16:13:51 -0400
Message-Id: <1FCC1AB3-5E29-4AE6-94A5-0A546CC94C75@3roundstones.com>
Cc: "public-rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Richard's proposal seems to fit with Pat's summary, with the addition of the "graph resource" term.  Does anyone object to that? (I don't)

We can have a term like g-text without using it in any of our docs.  I agree with Richard that should be avoided.

Regards,
Dave


On Jul 6, 2011, at 12:26, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> wrote:

> 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 Tuesday, 12 July 2011 20:07:51 GMT

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