Re: Changing @instanceof to @typeof

Niklas Lindström wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> is it only me (and Ralph it seems in the minutes) who find @typeof
> directionally wrong? Why not @oftype or @hastype?
> 
> A superficial reading make it seem as "instance" was replaced by its
> exact inverse: "type", which obviously cannot mean the same thing. Or
> am I just misinterpreting how @typeof should be read?
> 
> (Part of the thinking of "instanceof" was based on the N3 shorthand
> "is ... of", which is N3:s version of @rev. N3 also has "has" as
> syntax sugar for e.g. '<#me> has foaf:name "Niklas".', why I suggested
> @hastype last year [1]. Along with @a. ;) )
> 
> Best regards,
> Niklas

@a sounds perfect to me.

-Elias