Updating terminology: RDFX --> XDI RDF

Several suggestions have come up with regard to terminology
around the RDFX proposal, and since we’re early in this new branch of XDI
thinking, it’s a good time to improve it. 

 

First, both Laurie Rae
and Paul Trevithick have suggested that RDFX may not be a good name for the
proposed data model because it suggests it may just be: a) a slight tweak of
RDF, B) a new RDF serialization format, or c) adding XRIs to standard RDF
(which was the original inspiration for the term). But Paul points out that
RDFX is really more than that, because it defines a basic RDF vocabulary (the core
verbs) that is reflected directly in the composition of XDI XRIs. 

 

So in the V3 proposal I uploaded today I changed the name of
the data model to XDI RDF.

 

Second, since Andy and Steve and Laurie and I found that we
need a term for talking about the data model behind the v17 and v18 XDI schemas
in comparison with the XDI RDF model, we came up with “3-layer model”.
So now we can talk about the XDI RDF model and 3-layer model and be clear what
we mean.

 

Third, ever since we starting discussing the XDI RDF model
and explaining that four XDI RDF verbs have clear English language equivalents,
a consistent suggestion (most recently from Paul) has been to simply make them
the English words, i.e.:

 

Replace                        With

----------------                    -----------

$ref                               $is

$ref$object                    $is$a

$link                             $has

$link$object                   $has$a

 

When I first tried in the example XDI RDF tables, I
didn’t think it was “rigourous” enough. However the more I tried
it the more it made sense, so the latest version of the XDI RDF proposal (V3)
uses them. Download it and see what you think:

 

            http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/22472/xdi-rdf-model-v3.pdf

 

Lastly, see my reply to Bill about changing $data to $type
per his suggestion.

 

=Drummond