Re: Naming convention

> On 22. Jul 2024, at 11:15, Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it> wrote:
> 
> By looking at the syntax in the working baseline, we could adopt the following naming convention, which allows us to avoid the use of the words “asserted” and “unasserted”.
>     • a graph is a set of triples; 
>     • therefore, when we refer to a triple then the triple is “asserted”;
>     • a triple term is not a triple;
>     • therefore, when we refer to a triple term then the triple term is “unasserted”;
>     • instead of saying that a triple term may be asserted, we should say that the triple structure of a triple term appears as a triple in the graph.
> 
> What do you think?

I agree with your points about 'graph' and ’triple'. However, we need to differentiate between a triple term (which is defined in the abstract syntax) and the concrete occurrences. In Turtle-star that is the difference between

    <<( :s :p :o )>>    # triple term

and

    << :s :p :o >>
    << :r | :s :p :o >>

The latter ones need a name too.


I’m currently working out a full proposal of how to handle "unasserted assertions" (ARG, said it again), and started by developing a nomenclatura:

- triple term: 
  the tripleTerm as defined in the abstract syntax, 
  serialized as <<( :s :p :o )>> in Turtle-star

- reifier term: 
  a reified triple term together with an optional identifier,
  serialized as << :s :p :o >> or << :r | :s :p :o >> in the current proposal of Turtle-star
- desribed triple: 
  same as reifier term, but easier to understand

- occurrence term: 
  an asserted reified triple term together with an optional identifier,
  serialized as << :s :p :o >> in Turtle* (the pre-CG version)
  and as annotation syntax in the current proposal of Turtle-star
- stated triple:
  same as occurrence term, but easier to understand


A better name for "unasserted assertions":
it is true that that name is an oxymoron, and a bit unwieldy, and it seems very unliked by some, but it is hard to come up with a better name that faithfully captures the concept of a triple that is described, and annotated, but not asserted in the graph. I hope that "described triple" settles this dispute, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it didn’t ;-) I tend to deprecate "reifier" and "occurrence" as they are rather unwieldy terms, and "reification" is also a pretty disputed concept with quite different possible meanings apart from the one defined in the RDF reification vocabulary.


.t

Received on Monday, 22 July 2024 11:01:30 UTC