Hello,
Please note this ticket:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP3-876
Finally, note this branch where I provide an update to all the docs replacing
"vendor" with "provider."
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/commit/34bcf7eaa9deb42ae13ef1f8cb21de79cc5aa180
Doing this update made me see the following hierarchy:
Provider
Graph System Provider
Graph Database Provider
Graph Processor Provider
Graph Driver Provider
Graph Language Provider
Note that GraphSystem[Database/Process] is the common parlance of the graph
computing space.
Here are some examples to show how "provider" feels better than "implementor."
The primary reason is that "implementation" is a noun used throughout to
describe the "provider's implementation" (not the "implementor's
implementation").
"A graph system provider…"
"The provider should implement…"
"If the provider's implementation requires.."
Try and do that with just "implementor." Watch:
"A graph system implementor…"
"The implementor should implement…"
"If the implementor's implementation requires.."
Thanks,
Marko.
http://markorodriguez.com
On Oct 5, 2015, at 2:28 PM, Marko Rodriguez <[email protected]> wrote:
> Seems that the DISCUSS is leaning towards removing "vendor" terminology.
>
> I will now make this a VOTE. If the VOTE is not heavily sided towards one
> side, we can bring up with gremlin-users@.
>
> Thanks everyone,
> Marko.
>
> http://markorodriguez.com
>
> On Oct 5, 2015, at 2:26 PM, Ran Magen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> +1 Imolementers
>>
>> On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 at 20:26 Bob Briody <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I've always liked the terms implementer and implementation. Plus, as
>>> Stephen stated, this was how it used to roll anyway.
>>>
>>> Everyone else is just a "user", right? Point being, "users" is a good term
>>> to group application developers, driver developers, and whoever else into a
>>> set of personas that operate via the APIs and are basically just not
>>> implementers.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Jason Plurad <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> Down with vendors, Up with implementers.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Stephen Mallette <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If memory serves, we've only used "vendor" for as long as TP3 has been
>>>>> around. I swear those who built on top of Blueprints were "Blueprints
>>>>> Implementers". If they built Gremlin (e.g. gremlin-scala) then we had
>>>>> "Gremlin Implementers". I'm not sure we went so far to say "Rexster
>>>>> Implementers", but the idea is sound. Anywho, "Implementers" does the
>>>>> trick for me.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Andrew Fitzgerald <
>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 for dropping "vendor"
>>>>>> On Oct 5, 2015 11:39 AM, "David Robinson" <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We may agree, Marko, on the discussion around "vendor", but some
>>>> things
>>>>>>> just aren't worth it.
>>>>>>> By strict definition, not opinion, it does define someone selling
>>>>>>> something.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the term is offensive, let's pick a new term we try to en-grain
>>> in
>>>>> our
>>>>>>> behavior and move on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We can focus on more important things - like helping our
>>> vendors...I
>>>>> mean
>>>>>>> "TP Implementors" use this cool think called TinkerPop/Gremlin.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here are two suggestions to place on the vote list for terminology:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a) Application Developers - those leveraging the Gremlin Language /
>>>>> APIs
>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> top of an implementation - be that Titan, Orient, Neo4J, Flink,
>>>> Spark,
>>>>>>> whatever.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a) TinkerPop Implementers (or Implementers for short) - those that
>>>>>>> implement an underlying system, whether for sale or not, that
>>> expose
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> Gremlin Language / API.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Marko Rodriguez <
>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello Pp-otik-ner
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It seems that the mentors are adverse to the term "vendor" even
>>>>> though
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> the mentees have explained Hadoop, Spark, Gremlin-Scala,
>>>> gremlin-php,
>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>> are all considered "vendors." That is, anything that implements
>>> the
>>>>>>>> TinkerPop3 API regardless of them being commercial or otherwise
>>> is
>>>> a
>>>>>>> vendor.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With that said (and known), we can continually go back and forth
>>>> with
>>>>>>> "No.
>>>>>>>> 'vendor' means this." "Uh uh, it doesn't -- it means this." "That
>>>>> makes
>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>> sense cause to me it means this."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If we are going to get TinkerPop out of the malaise of personal
>>>>>> opinions
>>>>>>>> and arguments about meaning in the English language (in
>>>> zeitgeist), I
>>>>>> say
>>>>>>>> we bring this to a collective VOTE which includes the whole
>>>> community
>>>>>>> (i.e.
>>>>>>>> gremlin-users@ as well). I would frame the vote as:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Should TinkerPop abstain from its use of the word
>>> 'vendor'
>>>>> (to
>>>>>>>> categorize graph system and graph language implementers) because,
>>>> to
>>>>>> you,
>>>>>>>> it strongly implies commercial interest?"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With that vote tally, we can then do accordingly and from then
>>> on,
>>>> no
>>>>>>>> individual's personal opinion about the meaning of "vendor" will
>>> be
>>>>>>>> considered a valid argument given that language is a socially
>>>>>> constructed
>>>>>>>> phenomena.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thoughts?,
>>>>>>>> Marko.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://markorodriguez.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Have a good one,
>>>> Jason
>>>>
>>>
>
