W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > July 2011

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

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 17:26:40 -0500
Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <674ED304-B062-40BA-84F3-FE8DA5AE5DB3@ihmc.us>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>

On Jul 12, 2011, at 3:09 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote:

> ....
> Sandro defined g-text as:
> [[
> A "g-text" is a particular sequence of characters or bytes which
> conveys a particular g-snap in some language (eg turtle or rdf/xml).
> ]]
> which works for RDFa etc reading it as not ruling other bytes about something else as well.
> Anything where there is one graph so not TriG.
> In fact, if we don't have something for g-text, I think it might default to "[RDF] document". "serialization" is OK but it is bulky.
> “Representation of a resource [in RDF syntax XYZ]” feels like it begs the question again even if technically correct.  I have also seen "a graph represents ..." using representation at a different level.

Oh yes, graphs certainly represent. Not AWWW-represent, of course. I think 'serialization' or 'document' is better for the g-text idea.

A question for Sandro: if I prod a g-box and it sends me a g-text, and then I store that g-text in a file, have I now created  a(nother) g-box? What if I put the file into a Web server and give it a URI? More generally, what does it take to transform a mere g-text into a fully fledged g-box?


> 	Andy

IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Tuesday, 12 July 2011 22:27:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:07 UTC