W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > May 2012

Re: RDF-ISSUE-89 (at-prefix): Should Turtle allow SPARQL's PREFIX like @prefix? [RDF Turtle]

From: Thomas Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 21:04:42 -0400
To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120515010442.GA92609@julius>
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:12:23AM -0400, Dave Wood wrote:
> > We could do this experiment:  find a couple people who've used at least
> > one formal language before, but never seen Turtle or SPARQL, and ask
> > them which of these looks like a language they'd rather use:
> > 
> >        @prefix foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/>.
> >        @prefix : <http://example.com/Alice/personal#>.
> > 
> >        :Alice foaf:knows :Bob, :Charlie, :Dave.
> > 
> > or
> > 
> >        prefix foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/>.
> >        prefix <http://example.com/Alice/personal#>.
> > 
> >        Alice foaf:knows Bob, Charlie, Dave.
> > 
> > Does anyone doubt the second example would win overwhelmingly?
> 
> Having taught undergrads and grad students Turtle and SPARQL, I do
> think there are some didactic objections to the second form:
> 
> 1.  The barewords aren't obviously tied to anything.  How is a new
> student of the language supposed to understand what can and can't go
> there?
> 
> 2.  The ':' serves as a useful indication that the term is to be
> treated as a URI.  Barewords for URI fragments don't capture that.

+1 - strongly agree

Tom

-- 
Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2012 01:05:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:48 GMT