- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:22:14 +0100
- To: public-rdf-comments@w3.org
Hi Dan,
On 11/08/12 07:46, Dan Brickley wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> On 10 August 2012 19:25, Dave Beckett <dave@dajobe.org> wrote:
>> Dear RDF Working Group
>
> (Just a personal response here)
Ditto.
> Agreed. This is a niche topic, but I still now thing it is of occasional use.
>
> In particular, as a maintainer/editor/contributor for popular RDF
> vocabularies (FOAF, schema.org and others) I believe there is implicit
> demand for this which is often expressed instead in terms of requests
> for new inversely named properties. Whenever someone asks a vocabulary
> maintainer to add 'isDirectorOf' alongside 'director', or asks what
> the inverse of 'actor', or 'associatedAnatomy' or 'depicts' is, they
> are talking about just this issue.
For those people, do you think "^" will read acceptable to those people?
(Your point about "isXof" not always being the best choice of name is
also interesting.)
>> 3. It is not in SPARQL's data syntax.
>> 4. There is a high bar to add a new feature to an existing, well
>> understood and implemented language like Turtle. This feature does not
>> fit that in my judgement.
>
> Taking those two together, ...
>
> I only support adding such a construct if it has a comparable notation
> in SPARQL. They might not be 100% identical, but the basic concept
> ought to either be in both, or in neither. Turtle and SPARQL share a
> common heritage in N3; if we can make teaching them (Turtle and
> SPARQL; I consider N3 something like a "Labs project") easier by
> sharing structure and ideas, we ought to.
A difference between "^:directory" (or the "is...of" syntax) and a
property :isDirectorOf is that the "^" solution immediately does the
reversing of the written subject and written object.
:Ridley_Scott ^:director :Blade_Runner
leading to a possible unexpected situation later:
SELECT *
{
:Ridley_Scott ?p ?o .
}
returns nothing.
Andy
> cheers,
>
> Dan
>
>> So my request is that you do not add it.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Dave
>>
>
Received on Saturday, 11 August 2012 10:22:44 UTC