Hello,
Please note the following 3.1.0-SNAPSHOT docs where "vendor" has been removed.
http://tinkerpop.incubator.apache.org/docs/3.1.0-SNAPSHOT/
Take care,
Marko.
http://markorodriguez.com
On Oct 8, 2015, at 1:42 PM, Stephen Mallette <[email protected]> wrote:
> I like this hierarchy of naming:
>
> Provider
> Graph System Provider
> Graph Database Provider
> Graph Processor Provider
> Graph Driver Provider
> Graph Language Provider
>
> and "provider" does seem like the right term. That hierarchy nicely
> describes the sub-communities within TinkerPop.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Marko Rodriguez <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
