- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 13:54:10 +0100
- To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- CC: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Dave Beckett wrote:
> On this issue sticking with solely the turtle subset of n3 is my preference.
>
> The reason I proposed moving to turtle was that the query language matched
> the rdf graph syntax such as used in CONSTRUCT, and in the data files we
> already use.
>
> So here are some test cases I would expect to work for those things:
>
> Testing RDF data in turtle works as a query
> 1. Take any turtle document foo.ttl any paste the content into @HERE@ in a
> sparql query:
> SELECT * WHERE { @HERE@ }
>
> 2. Run it against the Turtle document foo.ttl
>
> 3. You should get 1 match with no bindings.
>
> Testing RDF data in turtle works as a construct
> 1. Take any turtle document foo.ttl any paste the content into @HERE@ in a
> sparql query:
> CONSTRUCT { @HERE@ } WHERE { ?x ?y ?z }
>
> 2. Run it against the Turtle document:
> @prefix ex: <http://example.org/>
> ex:a :ex:b ex:c .
>
> 3. You should get the same graph as foo.ttl out
>
> (it might be you don't need the WHERE clause)
>
> These are of course, untested ;)
Could they be added to the test suite? Please? :-) They'd be a good start for a
Construct/ directory of basic construct things.
Andy
>
> As a particular criticism, I don't like the << ... >> reification syntax,
> it has never been asked for as an addition to Turtle (a few years experience)
> and I don't need it for any of my applications.
>
> Dave
>
Received on Monday, 11 April 2005 12:54:30 UTC