W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2009

RE: Alternative Syntaxes for BGPs

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:30:45 +0000
To: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B6CF1054FDC8B845BF93A6645D19BEA3694058EE9F@GVW1118EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: b.glimm@googlemail.com [mailto:b.glimm@googlemail.com] On Behalf Of
> Birte Glimm
> Sent: 30 October 2009 12:00
> To: Kendall Clark
> Cc: Seaborne, Andy; SPARQL Working Group
> Subject: Re: Alternative Syntaxes for BGPs
> 
> >> It would be nice to see a member submission so that it’s the users and
> >> tool makers defining this.
> >
> > So I guess you didn't see me say we're doing this in a upcoming version of
> > Pellet, which is a relevant tool with users who've requested this sort of
> > thing.
> 
> That would apply to HermiT as well, so in that sense I do speak as
> tool developer too and I can't see our users happily learning triple
> syntax. Functional Style & Manchester syntax are quite popular.

I quite agree it's a better syntax.

I just though that having the users and tool developers (yes Kendall, I had seen your message) co-submit, including all the details, test cases, etc, would be more effective for you than a note by some people in this WG.

	Andy

> 
> Birte
> 
> > Cheers,
> > Kendall
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 306
> Computing Laboratory
> Parks Road
> Oxford
> OX1 3QD
> United Kingdom
> +44 (0)1865 283529
Received on Friday, 30 October 2009 12:32:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:40 GMT