W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > August 2012

Re: Inverse properties in Turtle

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 19:55:09 +0100
Message-ID: <5027FC0D.6070302@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-comments@w3.org

On 12/08/12 04:30, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
>> What does not work for me in this case is the argument like
>> >
>> >  Use Case -> feature solves Use Case -> include feature.
> Case #1
> For one thing, it would mean that a Turtle serialization of a SPARQL DESCRIBE (at least one using a Concise Bounded Description) could be generated with a single "subject".

Do we have any evidence systems would use it to format machine generated 

cwm (for is..of) does not use it in output even when it would save 
having to invent a bNode label (one argument for inverses).

_:a is :p of :s1, :s2 .
      @prefix : <#> .
      @forSome :_g0 .

     <http://example/s1>     <http://example/p> :_g0 .
     <http://example/s2>     <http://example/p> :_g0 .

> For a describe of :gregg in the graph
> :gregg foaf:knows :andy .
> :andy foaf:knows :gregg .
> could be serialized as
> :gregg foaf:knows : andy; ^foaf:knows :andy .

I'm not disagreeing with the use case but you're arguing in line with 
the style that does not work for me at this late stage - it does not 
consider total impact. This isn't a case of "ignore if you don't want to 
use it".

Received on Sunday, 12 August 2012 18:55:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:29:53 UTC