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

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

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:43:45 +0100
Cc: RDF Comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4E1A00FE-E1BE-42A1-8954-35EFAF199406@garlik.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
On 2012-07-18, at 12:27, Dan Brickley wrote:
>> A massive +1. Having been burned by that in the past, it is indeed a very good argument for it.
>> The argument about generating Turtle data from pre-existing hashes is also a very good one. I've written a few of these 'RDFizers' in the past, just recursively going through a hash and outputting a string that happens to be valid Turtle (see https://github.com/moustaki/bbc-serialiser for example, which is currently in use on a few BBC websites) - and having a way to write triples in both directions make that a *lot* easier...
> If (a) it could be done identically in SPARQL 1.1 and Turtle (b) it
> was done with punctuation (e.g. ^) rather than pseudo-English, i'd be
> supportive.
> (Is 'is isPrimaryTopicOf of' the same as 'primaryTopic'? The existence
> of isPrimaryTopicOf is a good reason for exploring such a design...)
> Every difference we create between SPARQL and Turtle diminishes the
> value and teachability of both…


- Steve

Steve Harris, CTO
Garlik, a part of Experian
+44 7854 417 874  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93
Registered office: Landmark House, Experian Way, Nottingham, Notts, NG80 1ZZ
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2012 11:44:22 UTC

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