- 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