Re: [Gzz] PEG: vocab again

[Tuomas Lukka]

On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 03:14:00PM +0300, Matti Katila wrote:
> On Mon, 12 May 2003, Tuomas Lukka wrote:
> 
> > Overall changes 
> > ---------------
> > 
> > Create new package, ``org.fenfire.vocab.lava``.
> > 
> > Move most of the vocabulary entries into lava.
> > 
> > Freeze ``org.fenfire.vocab``. Changes only through PEG process.
> > 
> > Change the prefix ``http://fenfire.org/vocabulary/``
> > to ``http://fenfire.org/rdf-v/``.
> > After the prefix, each namespace shall contain the year and month it was 
> > originally
> > defined in, in the form
> > ``2003/05/``. After that, the name of the namespace, lowercase, with .html 
> > -suffix.
> > So, for instance, FF.content would be
> > ``http://fenfire.org/rdf-v/2003/05/fenfire.html#content``.
> 
> And then we need a script which takes care to link every vocabulary
> to http://fenfire.org/rdf-v/?

That would be nice.

> > ALPH
> > """"
> > 
> > Remove ``content``, is in FF.
> > 
> > Remove ``clone`` and ``cloneType`` and ``dataType``, 
> > not current/relevant.
> > 
> > Remove ``xuType``, should be ``xuLinkType``.
> > 
> > Then, we have left ``xuLinkFrom``, ``xuLinkTo``, ``xuLinkType``.
> > We should probably avoid 'xu' in the permanent names,
> > just in case. These should be moved to CLINK.CLink, CLINK.cLinkFrom,
> > CLINK.cLinkTo for clink, "content link", a term Ted at some point used.
> 
> I think you got lost with your definitions :)

> CLINK.to and CLINK.from 
>   or 
> CLINK.left and CLINK.rigth

You mean you want to propose different names for these?

> And what we want to say with 
> 
>  /**                                    ,--ALPH:xuLinkFrom -> enfilade 
>   *    ALPH.xuType <--RDF:type --- id--<
>   *                                     '--ALPH:xuLinkTo-> enfilade
>   */
> 
> It's like CLINK.Pair or CLINK.Nut (or something related to fen .)
> or CLINK.container.
> 
> But it's not CLINK.CLink - this is not a programming language.

Why? I don't understand at all what you're saying...

> > FF
> > ""
> > 
> > Retain. Javadocs::
> >     static public Object content;
> 
> Should be final?

Fixed.

> > Combine to one class, CANVAS2D.
> > Rename ``Canvas`` to ``Canvas2D``.
> 
> Again, 'CANVAS2D.Canvas2D' ugh..
> CANVAS2D.Canvas tells a lot more than CANVAS2D.Canvas2D.
> 
> At least to me the latter one leaves a question: "And that means?"

Fixed, I like the idea.

> > PP
> > ""
> > 
> > Remove everything except association. Move association to DLINK.
> 
> What? Content link and dynamic link? Hmm, yes, because clink can also mean 
> constant link ;)
> 
> > Name comes from "Directed LINK".
> 
> Ou.. that was not the first thing in mind.

Works for both, actually... 

> > Javadoc::
> >     /** RDF vocabulary for directed (so far typeless)
> >      * one-to-one links.
> >      */
> >     public class DLINK {
> >     /** The directed link association.
> >      * A and B are linked by the tuple (A, DLINK.dLink, B)
> >      */
> >     static public Object dLink;
> >     }
> 
> Hmm, 'DLINK.dlink'  - Are you sure?-)  
> 
> Don't take this personally but it's little funny :)

Why?

> > RDF
> > """
> > 
> > Leave as is, javadoc properly. Javadoc::
> 
> But it has only a 'type'. Do we want to say in public that we need only 
> type of the RDF related vocabs?-) 

*so far*. More can be added later.

        Tuomas