- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 17:26:40 -0500
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: public-rdf-wg@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? Pat > > 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