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: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 08:22:46 +0100
Message-ID: <4E27D3C6.4030704@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org


On 21/07/11 02:24, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
> Le 21/07/2011 03:11, Lee Feigenbaum a écrit :
>> On 7/20/2011 8:37 PM, Guus Schreiber wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> 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"
>>
>> At some point I feel we are splitting hairs, but I significantly prefer
>>
>> RDF Graph
>> RDF Graph container
>> RDF Graph serialization
>>
>> ...to minting new terms.
>>
>> Just because people commonly use RDF graph as shorthand for RDF graph
>> container does not motivate me to abandon such a normal and
>> well-established term.
>
> Huge +1

+1

RDF 2004 uses "graph".  We need a very big reason to change and to me 
that would be "RDF 2" territory and not RDF 1.1.

>
>>
>> Lee
>>
>>>
>>> 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 07:23:16 GMT

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