W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > July 2012

Re: in...of syntax Re: Turtle Last Call: Request for Review

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:22:29 +0100
Message-ID: <50069C75.60606@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-comments@w3.org

On 16/07/12 22:11, Dan Brickley wrote:
> I am entirely sat on the fence. I don't feel comfortable turning
> Turtle (and SPARQL too?) into more of a pseudo-English thing. On the
> other hand ...
>> >- By allowing a predicate to be used in either direction, it decreases
>> >the motivation for the antipattern define both p and inverse of p for all p.
>> >In other words, of you can write   "is child of" you don't need
>> >to define a separate "parent" property.
> ...this is quite persuasive, though note that RDF vocabulary authors
> take more into account than Turtle: if 'rev=' is not considered
> deployable in HTML5+RDFa, they'll still include the inverses.

Specifically on the is..of rather than allowing reverse properties:

I don't like the use of "..is .. of .." -- this pseudo-English is, well, 

If a constrained (natural) language approach is desired, then adding 
features one by one seems to miss the opportunity for a systematic 
approach.  So why not a develop comprehensive solution

1/ Layer on top of Turtle or N-triples for now
    They are moving to different goals and timescales

2/ Have a comprehensive, prototyped and used system
    (that's more than is in N3 where it is just @has,
    @is ..  @of).

3/ Persuade people it's a "good thing"

4/ Submit to W3C with deployment experience.

Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2012 11:23:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:59:30 UTC