W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > September 2011

Re: today's minutes available

From: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 15:35:49 -0700
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF89B59514.ECFE6675-ON88257919.0079A3BA-88257919.007C1CD4@us.ibm.com>
Hi all,
I was on a cellphone driving and it was too noisy for me to voice my 
opinion then but I meant to say that, regarding the Graphs in Turtle 
question, I find the @graph proposal more appealing than the {} one. I 
think it is more consistent with what we already have in Turtle.

It might sound silly but on a practical level I also find it convenient to 
be able to add an @graph statement in my existing document without having 
to re-indent all the following lines the way I would with the {} proposal. 
I know that's not necessarily a high priority criteria but at the same 
time Turtle was invented to make it easy for humans to write and read rdf 
so I'd argue it's not totally off base either.

Finally, although I don't know what actually triggered Sandro's question 
about whether the file contains the complete graph or not, it seems to me 
that the {} proposal makes it look like what I'm seeing is the complete 
graph when it may not be. I know it's up to us to define that there is no 
such implication but I'd rather select a syntax that is more intuitive and 
less likely to mislead a casual reader/user who may not have read the spec 
carefully enough.

Regards.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group




From:   Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To:     <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Date:   09/28/2011 09:21 AM
Subject:        today's minutes available
Sent by:        public-rdf-wg-request@w3.org



at http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-09-28
Received on Wednesday, 28 September 2011 22:36:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:45 GMT