- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 07:08:09 +0100
- To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, Ian Davis <ian.davis@talis.com>, W3C RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
> > Every evolution path I see from this leads to either fragmentation or unrealistic implementation demands. The options I see are: > a. do nothing. > b. gradual introduction of redundant short terms, followed by gradual redaction of longer names. -- good bye cardinality I am not sure what you mean by good bye cardinality. > c. international change-over day. -- all the air traffic control and clinical support systems relying on RDF will crash that day. > d. stake out short syntactic forms for use in turtle in SPARQL but leave the denotations the same. > B.t.w., though shortcuts like "a" obviously help, that is not a solution either imho. It would make turtle easier to use, that is true, although I am not sure we can have a shortcut for all the RDF and RDFS terms (except to accept the unqualified name as keyword, which would of course be a solution), but turtle is not the only syntax around... Ivan >> Best, >> Richard > > -- > -ericP
Received on Thursday, 10 November 2011 06:08:34 UTC