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

On 8/19/14 11:20 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> 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.

Hint:

We have annotation oriented relations such as skos:altLabel, 
skos:prefLabel, and rdfs:comment for resolving these issues. Please do 
not dwell on matters like this, as has been the case in the past re., 
matters of this nature. Dogfood RDF, especially as these are the kinds 
of issues that its actually unique at resolving.

Use this opportunity to exploit RDF :-)

-- 
Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this