Re: Moving forward with ISSUE-30 (IRI template expansion)

On Aug 19, 2014, at 6:24 AM, Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be> wrote:

>> That's true and one of the reasons I would actually prefer to get rid of
>> those Turtle artifacts.. Anyway I asked a while ago to add those angle
>> brackets to make it compatible with Turtle. Unfortunately no one commented that.
> 
> For all IRIs? I don't see the point in that.
> It makes things more complicated without adding value.
> 
>> We seem to get stuck here. Any suggestions how we could move forward? (this
>> is a question for everyone)
> 
> Let me try to help by rephrasing the problem.
> 
> a) We need to distinguish between IRIs and literals.
> i.e., the text “http://www.hydra-cg.com/” is different from
> the IRI  http://www.hydra-cg.com/.
> 
> b) For literals, we should be able to add a type or a language.
> 
> Nothing more is necessary; delimiting and escaping already happens.
> This contrasts with Turtle, where delimiting of multiple fields is needed,
> and where IRIs also need to be distinguished from prefixed names.
> 
> 
> The syntax we currently have is:
> - surround literals in double quotes
> - signify data types with @ and types with ^^
> 
> This seems to be a minimal solution,
> with the added benefit that the '@' and '^^' symbols look familiar.
> There is, however, no other resemblance with N-Triples / Turtle.
> 
> Do we agree or disagree on this syntax?

+1

Gregg

> (Perhaps it's best to talk about names after this.)
> 
> Best,
> 
> Ruben

Received on Tuesday, 19 August 2014 17:00:16 UTC