- From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:52:31 +0200
- To: Linking Open Data <linking-open-data@simile.mit.edu>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
Hi all I suggested earlier in this thread (but it's been long and tricky to follow - please note I trimmed the cc list) to use simply "description". But maybe it's also too ambiguous (regarding e.g., rdf:Description)? I'm not too much in favor of "redescription", which (at least for the French-native speaker that I am) seems to mean "new description". I like pretty much "infon" because of its quantic flavor. The "infon" being what you get from an interaction with the network, and it really looks in many respects like a quantic event. BTW seems to me that such a concept is independent of the nature of the resource (information resource or not, whether such a distinction is sustainable or not - I prefer to be agnostic about it here) :-) Bernard Pat Hayes a écrit : >> Hi Frank, >> >> >>> I'd seriously suggest you look for some >>> alternative to "data item" for the concept in >>> question. >>> >> OK, but this leads to a question which I >> accutally wanted to try to avoid asking on this >> list. >> >> Hmm, I will do it anyway and see what happens ;-) >> >> Question 4: What term should we use instead? >> > > Using the heuristic principle that an artificial > coinage is less likely to cause confusion than > re-using an existing term with a new meaning, how > about 'transmit' used as a noun? What you get > back from dereferencing the URI is either a > representation<sub>REST</sub> of the resource, > when its an information resource, or else > a >>transmit<< which describes (in some broad > sense) the resource, if its a non-information > resource. > > Or, if this seems too peculiar, call it the > 'represented description' or 'redirected > description'. Either of these could be > abbreviated to 'redescription', which is > (arguably) an English word that hasn't been > technically re-used too much yet. Because > according to your definition, its relationship to > the resource is being a description of it, and to > the URI is being the > representation<sub>REST</sub> of the resource to > which the first http endpoint redirects to. > > Yet another possibility which will confuse only a > vanishingly small set of people is 'infon', taken > from situation theory where it means something > like a coherent chunk of information about > something. > > Pat > > >> Cheers, >> >> Chris >> >> >> -- >> Chris Bizer >> Freie Universität Berlin >> Phone: +49 30 838 54057 >> Mail: chris@bizer.de >> Web: www.bizer.de >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Manola" <fmanola@acm.org> >> To: "Chris Bizer" <chris@bizer.de> >> Cc: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>; >> <www-tag@w3.org>; <semantic-web@w3.org>; >> "Linking Open Data" >> <linking-open-data@simile.mit.edu> >> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 6:07 PM >> Subject: Re: Terminology Question concerning Web Architecture and Linked Data >> >> >>> Chris-- >>> >>> I appreciate that we run into terminology >>> conflicts all the time around here, but I'd >>> seriously suggest you look for some alternative >>> to "data item" for the concept in question. An >>> awful lot of people (particularly those >>> involved with databases) are used to seeing >>> "data item" refer to something like a property >>> or attribute (like "name" or "age"). More >>> specifically, they're used to seeing records as >>> containing multiple data items (or their >>> values). From that point of view, the >>> sentence "When you interpret the Web of Data as >>> a set of interlinked databases, a data item >>> would equal a record in a specific database." >>> looks particularly strange. As I say, I >>> understand the inevitability of terminology >>> conflicts, but ...? >>> >>> Cheers! >>> >>> --Frank >>> >>> On Jul 25, 2007, at 10:12 AM, Chris Bizer wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Hi Tim, >>>> >>>> >>>>> I can't think of a term for "the information >>>>> which you get about the thing identified by >>>>> it when you look up a URI" which works for >>>>> me. >>>>> >>>>> It has of course the term "Representation" >>>>> which connects an Information Resource and >>>>> the (metadata, bits) pair which you get back, >>>>> which is different. >>>>> >>>> As we did not want to repeat the definition >>>> all over the tutorial, we ended up with a term >>>> called "data item". >>>> >>>> Within section 2.1 of the tutorial, we define >>>> the term as: "The term data items refers to >>>> the description of a non-information resource >>>> that a client obtains by dereferencing a >>>> specific URI that identifies this >>>> non-information resource." >>>> (http://sites.wiwiss.fu- >>>> berlin.de/suhl/bizer/pub/LinkedDataTutorial/#aliases) >>>> >>>> Note that the definition is a bit more >>>> specific than your sentence above, as it is >>>> restricted to non-information resources and >>>> not things in general (assuming that your term >>>> "thing" refers to non- information resources >>>> as well as information resources). >>>> >>>> We were also struggling to find a good word >>>> that matches the concept and have chosen "data >>>> item" in the end as it somehow relates to the >>>> overall term "Linked Data" and as we hope that >>>> people from the database community will >>>> understand the second informal definition of >>>> the term: "When you interpret the Web of Data >>>> as a set of interlinked databases, a data item >>>> would equal a record in a specific database." >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Chris >>>> > > > -- *Bernard Vatant *Knowledge Engineering ---------------------------------------------------- *Mondeca** *3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France Web: www.mondeca.com <http://www.mondeca.com> ---------------------------------------------------- Tel: +33 (0) 871 488 459 Mail: bernard.vatant@mondeca.com <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> Blog: Leçons de Choses <http://mondeca.wordpress.com/>
Received on Thursday, 26 July 2007 08:52:45 UTC