Re: [TURTLE] Turtle Inverse Properties

On 8/20/12 11:16 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
>
> On 20/08/12 15:24, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> On 8/20/12 10:14 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 20/08/12 14:20, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>>> We have to teach RDF by encouraging folks to craft Turtle by hand, as
>>>> a first step. Making triples visible is the key to this endeavor.
>>>> Historically, as exemplified by RDF/XML, losing the triple in syntax
>>>> ultimately loses the plot. IMHO., HTML with RDFa or Micordata embeded
>>>> don't address this fundamental issue, neither does JSON-LD (which is
>>>> for JS developers).
>>>>
>>>> The value of TimBL's point is best appreciated once there's
>>>> acceptance of the notion that folks (profile: end-user and/or
>>>> integrator / tech plumber) will ultimately start the Linked Data
>>>> journey by crafting Turtle by hand.
>>>>
>>>> Unlike HTML, crafting Turtle by hand is both useful and extremely
>>>> practical.
>>>
>>>
>>> Kingsley,
>>>
>>> I agree that the clarity of triples is the major win with Turtle. We
>>> have been recommending that to people who have got lost in RDF/XML ...
>>> all too many of them!
>>>
>>> > Making triples visible is the key to this endeavor.
>>>
>>> This an argument for not including reverse path syntax, right? Makes
>>> the syntax close to the triples.  Inverse properties are in the data
>>> model.
>
> """Inverse properties are not in the data model."""

They are in the mental model :-)

>
>>>
>>>     Andy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Andy,
>>
>> I think the extension can be made in a non detrimental way to Turtle. As
>> you know, we support it, but we don't necessarily put it at the front
>> door when introducing Linked Data via Turtle. In fact, I completely
>> forgot about our implementation until I had a conversation with
>> @openlink:ivan .
>>
>> My argument is in support of TimBL's suggestion with the goal of getting
>> it in now without necessarily having it at the front door. Basically, as
>> folks get familiar with Turtle the benefits of the tweak become clearer.
>> This is ultimately about avoiding a future protracted effort -- on the
>> standardization front --  relating to this kind of syntax sugar.
>
> So you support adding "is...of" and are against adding the syntax "^" 
> for inverse properties?

No, I think both should be supported where "^" is just shorthand i.e., 
additional syntax sugar.
>
> Do you support, in your product, the "has" syntax of N3? 

Yes, but that happened was committed approx. five minutes ago.

> What about the N3 (different from the proposal here) style "^" and "/"?
>
> (N3 is a lot more than just extra pieces of syntax - it's not (just) a 
> data format - it's a proposed way of working and exchanging such 
> working (rules) on the web.)

I know.

btw -- I don't see Turtle as just a data format. Its a data 
representation language that can also moonlight as a format :-)
>
>     Andy
>
>
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen