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

On 19 Aug 2014 at 11:02, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
>> What about calling its two values "SimplifiedTurtle" and
>> "LexicalRepresentation", "BasicRepresentation", "ValueRepresentation",
>> "ValueOnly", or "OnlyValue". I could live with any of these but find
>> "LexicalRepresentation" a bit too RDF-heavy given that mostly non-RDF
>> apps will use it.
>> 
>> Ruben?
> 
> Ha, I'm not the naming police,

No, but you were actively involved in these discussions and provided a lot
of very valuable thoughts. So I want to make sure to get your feedback
before sending out another call for consensus.


> but I'd be very cautious of referring to the Turtle spec.
> There is no official thing such as "simplified Turtle",
> so we'd have to define it ourselves anyway.

Yeah, that's true. That's also what worries me about this approach but
apparently that's what the majority of the group wants. So my idea was to
explicitly mention that it is *simplified* Turtle (and thus not standard
Turtle) and explicitly call out the differences to the Turtle spec.


> One more suggestion:
> - TypedRepresentation (because we distinguish between literals and URIs)

I don't like this as much as I fear people will have a quick look, recognize
it as Turtle and move on. I personally feel better to explicitly acknowledge
that it is *based* on Turtle but not truly Turtle. Does this makes sense to
you?


>> Removing "Expansion" will allow us, and others, to use this in other
>> contexts as well. 
> 
> For consistency reasons, it could be interesting to find things with the
>> same suffixes.
> For instance, ValueOnlyRepresentation and TypedRepresentation
> are clearly related to each other; this clue can be helpful for usage.



--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

Received on Tuesday, 19 August 2014 10:28:12 UTC