Re: ISSUE-19: Should TURTLE allow triples like "[ :p 123 ]." as SPARQL does ?

I don't see any inconsistency.  You appear to want to move something
that is a node and put it in a place where a triple is expected?  Why
should that work?   

If this change is made, then constructions should also be so promotable.

peter


From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Subject: Re: ISSUE-19: Should TURTLE allow triples like "[ :p 123 ]." as SPARQL does ?
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 07:22:01 -0500

> It does not fix technically. But there is an inconsistency in the language. It is
> perfectly fine to say
> 
> <a> <b> [ <c> <d> ] .
> 
> ie, having the [ ... ] syntax defining a blank node with some triples, if I take this
> out of the object position
> 
> [ <c> <d> ] .
> 
> then this is no longer valid. I must admit that was one of the most frequent error I
> made in my early Turtle days...
> 
> Ivan
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, March 31, 2011 12:09 pm, Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> From: RDF Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
>> Subject: ISSUE-19: Should TURTLE allow triples like "[ :p 123 ]." as SPARQL does ?
>> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 10:33:10 -0500
>>
>>>
>>> ISSUE-19: Should TURTLE allow triples like "[ :p 123 ]." as SPARQL does ?
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/19
>>>
>>> Raised by:
>>> On product:
>>
>> I do not feel that this change fixes anything in TURTLE, so
>>
>> -1
>>
>> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>> Bell Labs Research
>>
>>
> 
> 
> -- 
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Thursday, 31 March 2011 12:28:06 UTC