- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 10:47:32 +0100
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Sandro, On 24 Aug 2012, at 17:32, Sandro Hawke wrote: > I think it would be MUCH better to have two distinct syntaxes with different semantics than one syntax with a subtle flag for which semantics is intended. So, we could have a named-g-box syntax (looking like TriG) and a g-snap-literals syntax (looking a bit like N3), if we want to support both communities. I have no idea what this means. A "named-g-box syntax" is impossible because the syntax can only contain snapshots; so in the *syntax* there re only named g-snaps (for some value of "named"). The g-box/g-snap distinction is a semantic one, not a syntactic one. TriG already looks a bit like N3. What do you mean by N3-like syntax? Are you talking about adding variables and nesting? Richard
Received on Monday, 27 August 2012 09:48:00 UTC