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

Re: Alternate proposal for new terms for g-snap, g-box and g-text

From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 02:37:45 +0200
Message-ID: <4E2774D9.2060005@vu.nl>
To: Ian Davis <ian.davis@talis.com>
CC: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>


On 21-07-2011 02:08, Ian Davis wrote:
> I think re-introducing the word "graph" into these new terms
> perpetuates the confusion led to the need for g-* terms in the first
> place. We recognise that "graph" has subtly different semantics
> between sparql and rdf concepts so let's avoid that term.
> Here's my suggestion, which I think are unambiguous:
>
> g-snap: "(mathematical) set of triples"
> g-box: "container of a set of triples"
> g-text: "serialization of a set of triples"
>
> One step further could lead us to coin a new term: TripleSet
>
> g-snap: "TripleSet"
> g-box: "TripleSet Container"
> g-text: "TripleSet Serialization"

Nice proposal. But I think some will object to the use of the term "set" 
for something that is not (necessarily) a mathematical set.

Small variation (but admittedly somewhat ugly):
   g-snap: "Triple Set"
   g-box: "Triple Container"
   g-text: "Triple Serialization"

Guus

>
> A TripleSet is immutable. A TripleSet Container contains exactly one
> TripleSet at a time but could be a different TripleSet at different
> times so a TripleSet Container is mutable. A TripleSet Serialization
> serializes exactly one TripleSet.
>
> A quick Google search suggests TripleSet is not a term in common use
> for other systems.
>
> In terms of spec changes: replace every occurrence of RDF Graph in the
> RDF specs with the term TripleSet
>
> I think it would be useful to talk about some of the characteristics
> of these concepts e.g. equivalence
>
> Two TripleSets are equivalent if they conform to the bijection defined
> at http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/#section-graph-equality
> (i.e. they differ only in the identity of their blank nodes).
>
> Two TripleSet Containers are equivalent if their contained TripleSets
> are equivalent
>
> Two TripleSet Serializations are equivalent if they parse to
> equivalent TripleSets
>
> In terms of those "terrible TAG/REST terms":
>
> A URI can denote a TripleSet Container. Dereferencing that URI should
> return a representation consisting of the TripleSet Serialization for
> the TripleSet currently contained by the TripleSet Container. A user
> agent parses the representation to derive the TripleSet which they
> will most likely place into a local TripleSet Container.
>
> In terms of SPARQL, a dataset consists of TripleSet Containers:
>
> ( C, ( Ui, Ci ) )
>
> A more concise name for TripleSet Containers would be a nice to have.
> Talis has been using the term Metabox for this concept for a long time
> (no prior art, I only recognise the equivalence today :). I don't
> think that's a great term to use, but perhaps TripleBox might work?
>
> Now, sorry to do this to you all, but I am away on holiday after
> tomorrow so I won't be around to get into any discussion this email
> may generate. I weighed up whether to send it now or wait and decided
> it was best to get something sent earlier. I'll pick up any
> conversation in a couple of weeks.
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 21 July 2011 00:38:30 GMT

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