From: Yves Raimond <Yves.Raimond@bbc.co.uk>

Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:12:29 +0100

To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>

Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org

Message-ID: <20110721091229.GN3285@dvbstreamer.national.core.bbc.co.uk>

Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:12:29 +0100

To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>

Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org

Message-ID: <20110721091229.GN3285@dvbstreamer.national.core.bbc.co.uk>

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 08:22:46AM +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > > 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 +1, although perhaps we could consider the following (mixing Ian's and your proposal :) ): g-snap: TripleSet g-box: Graph g-text: Serialisation It seems to me like the most intuitive: graph maps very well with what the SPARQL spec means by it, the tripleset is indeed a set, and the serialisation is, well, a serialisation. Best, y > > 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 09:13:05 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:00 UTC
*