> > One thing I was thinking about, comparing with SPARQL > is the difference in quoting for literals. SPARQL allows > 'foo' and '''foo''' as well as "foo" and """foo"" but > Turtle only uses double quotes. I need more information > on whether to add this, does this causes N3/cwm problems? > Cwm has always had triple-double-quote, which are like python and, I think, invaluable for multi-line strings. The single quotes and back quotes were reserved. I wish they had been reserved in SPARQL too. It is the sort of thing that, once you've allowed them, you can't reclaim them -- and then you find you want to extend the language and you are hosed as you have no characters left. Single quotes could for example be used as: - a different sort for string, one in which variable substitution occurs as in { ?x name ?y; phone ?z } => { 'You can call $y on the phone at $z for more information' }. - Nested quotes of some form with backquote, such as `foaf:Person' meaning the string of the URI of that symbol, as in myStatemet rdf:predicateURI `foaf:knows'. - Embedding XML as a shorter syntax for XML literals foo s:comment '<em>Don't try this at home</em>' etc What do people think? The SPARQL design seems to have been to just use up the language space with no thought for the future expansion. Also using up the $sign as a synonym for ?. Tim > The other SPARQL issue to consider is the allowed > characters in prefixed names. SPARQL has slightly > different rules that allow numbers and '.'s in different > places. > > See > Turtle - Terse RDF Triple Language 20 November 2007 > http://www.dajobe.org/2004/01/turtle/ > > All changes: > http://www.dajobe.org/2004/01/turtle/#sec-changelog > > Dave > > > >Received on Monday, 26 November 2007 01:05:06 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:02 GMT