Re: typing named nodes/blank nodes/literals

Hello,
I follow closely the work of this group, and I'm glad there is a common
effort going on, since in the last months I had the impression there were
two separate initiatives.
In the future consider me available to write docs and tutorials. It's
something a lot of devs hate to do, but writing examples and diagrams about
tech makes me happy.

For the question:

*.type* is easily confused with rdf:type, I would use it only if the values
are IRIs
*.nodeType* is a good name
*.termType* is the best because discourages interpretation

I would also suggest
*.elementType*
*.basicType*
*.internalType*
*.oType* (where the o is the picture of a node)

For the values I would go with the naming system that is more readable, so
- "IRI", "blank node", "variable"
is preferable over compact naming like:
- "uri", "bnode", "var"

Bye,
Piero


On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> In addition to the previous request,
> the Representation Task Force needs input on the following.
>
> As you know, there are 4 building blocks for triples (or patterns):
> – named nodes (IRIs)
> – blank nodes
> – literals
> – variables (in the case of patterns)
>
> To distinguish between these,
> we would add a property that indicates the type.
> (instanceof will not suffice for all usage.)
>
> How would you name this property?
> – .type
> – .termType
> – .nodeType
> – …
>
> The drawback of using .type might be that it's highly generic;
> on the other hand, it's just very short to enter.
>
> Furthermore, what would be the values of this property?
> – "IRI", "blank node", "variable"
> – "uri", "bnode", "var"
> – …
>
> Please let us know by Thursday 10 December 2015.
> Thanks in advance for your help!
>
> Ruben
>



-- 
http://pieroit.org/portfolio
+39 320 09 23 630