"generalized", please; was Re: JSON-LD Telecon Minutes for 2013-07-16

On 07/16/2013 12:22 PM, Manu Sporny wrote:
>     4. Add an option to produce "extended RDF", which defaults to
>        false. If the option is true, "extended RDF" will be produced,
>        retaining triples that have blank nodes as predicates. If the
>        option is false, standard RDF will be produced and triples with
>        blank node properties will be discarded.

The historical term for this is "generalized RDF", which has been used 
in W3C Rec-Track documents since at least 2007 [1] [2] [3].

This is also what I understood us to agree upon, and the Concepts editor 
implemented [4], although it's not really reflected in the minutes [5].

Aside from the historical point, it seems to me "extended RDF" could 
reasonably mean a lot of other things, including datasets, rules, or 
semantic extensions.  "Generalized" has a narrower meaning, although 
it's not a perfect term either.

       -- Sandro

[1] 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-rif-rdf-owl-20071030/#head-9c806971ccfd8fee665c8cf57ef0ceae60e35fa5
[2] 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-rif-rdf-owl-20071030/#note-generalized-rdf-graphs
    "Anticipating lifting of these restrictions in a possible future 
version of RDF, we use the more liberal notion of /generalized/ RDF graph."
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-rdf-owl/#def-generalized-rdf-graph
[4] 
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#section-generalized-rdf
[5] https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-06-26#line0189