RE: Moving forward with ISSUE-30 (IRI template expansion)

On 19 Aug 2014 at 09:10, McBennett, Pat wrote:
> Markus Lanthaler wrote on 15 Aug 2014 at 17:07:
>> On 14 Aug 2014 at 23:28, McBennett, Pat wrote:
>>>    [
>>>      a IriTemplate ;
>>>      template "http://example.com/users/{id}" ;
>>>      variableExpansion hydra:SimplifiedTurtleExpansion ;
>>>      mapping [
>>>        a IriTemplateMapping ;
>>>        variable "id" ;
>>>        property ex:userId .
>>>      ]
>>>    ]
>>> Or alternatively, 'hydra:ExpansionNone' and
>> 
>> Honestly, I found this naming confusing at best. The *template* will
always
>> be expanded. Variables on the other hand, are not "expanded" in the same
>> sense. Assuming the values of variables are RDF literals, we just include
>> different components thereof. "NoExpansion" means we just use the lexical
>> representation and ignore the datatype and the optional language tag.
>> "SimplifiedTurtleExpansion" means we will use all components and
serialize it
>> in a Turtle-like syntax. 
> 
> That's an excellent point.
> 
>> Taking that into consideration, could you live with calling the property
>> "variableRepresentation"? 
> 
> Turtle (and by extension SimplifiedTurtle) is a language (i.e. the 'Terse
RDF Triple
> Language'), and the W3C spec defines the syntax for that language, which
provides
> 'compatibility with the N-Triples format'.
> 
> Since we're trying here to describe: 'the syntax, format, or language
> used for describing how to interpret the substitution values for all
> variables used in this template mapping', how about:

Pat, we have endless alternatives but if we keep proposing new alternatives
instead of discussing existing proposal, we won't make any progress. Naming
is hard. Not everyone will be happy with every decision we'll make.
Standardization often means that the result will be something that makes
everyone equally unhappy. So, given, that everyone else involved in this
discussion seems to be happy with "variableRepresentation" (please correct
me if I'm wrong), I'll ask you again: 

Could you live with calling the property "variableRepresentation"? If not,
why not?

I know you personally don't like the term representation but I'm sure we can
find some wording in the specification to describe appropriately what is
meant by that term in this context.


Thanks,
Markus


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

Received on Tuesday, 19 August 2014 10:21:07 UTC