Re: Proposing new terms for g-snap and g-text

On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 17:26 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> From the telecon for the record:
> 
> (17:19:38) PatH: Current best guess for terminology is 'graph resource' 
> for anything mutable that emits graph representations; 'graph' for 
> snaps, and 'graph representation' for g-texts. THis fits with the REST 
> terminology and allows the use of 'graph' for them all when people are 
> being sloppy.

Must we really keep using the terrible REST/TAG terms?    *sigh*

   -- Sandro

> On 06/07/11 16:26, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> > I took ACTION-64 in the joint RDF+SPARQL call to propose new terms for g-snap and g-text. I'm doing so in this message. (Opinion on g-box was that it needs more clarification or crisper definition before we can talk about a replacement term.)
> >
> > Best,
> > Richard
> >
> >
> >
> > g-snap: Let's call it RDF Graph.
> >
> > “RDF graph” is a technical term with a precise definition that matches the meaning we want for g-snap.
> >
> > Some people use RDF Graph when they really mean g-box, but that clearly contradicts what's actually in the spec and doesn't seem to be *too* common.
> >
> >
> >
> > g-text: Let's avoid this concept.
> >
> > Back in the days when RDF/XML was the only game in town, the “g-text” concept made sense. But today it is difficult to maintain because what is a “g-text” to some, might just be a “text” to others; and the specific triples that you get from a given “g-text” depend on who does the parsing. Consider an HTML document. Is it a g-text? After all, it can serialize an RDF graph using RDFa markup. Or, these days, using Microdata markup. Or using eRDF or RDF/XML in comments or a number of other archaic schemes for shipping triples in HTML. Or using one of the quasi-canonical microformat-to-RDF mappings. Do you consider a document with media type application/rss+xml a g-text? What about application/powder+xml? What about text/plain, it could be N-Triples or not?
> >
> > So my advise is to avoid this term as much as possible.
> >
> > There are some useful related concepts which in my opinion should be used in preference over the g-text concept:
> >
> > “Serialization of an RDF graph [in RDF syntax XYZ]”
> >
> > “Representation of a resource [in RDF syntax XYZ]”
> >
> > These differ slightly from g-text because they are defined in relation to another entity (the graph and the resource, respectively). If used in the right context, these terms are accurate, well-defined and unambiguous.
> >
> 
>

Received on Friday, 8 July 2011 12:36:10 UTC