W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > April 2013

Re: Turtle implementation report for RDF::Trine

From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:07:37 -0400
Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, public-rdf-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <FB066CD2-80A0-4678-BA8C-0BC54FF65E0D@3roundstones.com>
To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
Hi Greg,

We discussed this issue today:
  https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-04-17#line0105

Regards,
Dave
--
http://about.me/david_wood



On Apr 17, 2013, at 11:19, Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com> wrote:

> On Apr 18, 2013, at 12:13 AM, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> wrote:
> 
>>> The user time question you raised is exemplified in the case where
>>> someone is copying prefixes from a SPARQL query. I would argue that
>>> ideally, we'd see one popular representation for prefix (and base)
>>> declarations and it would be compatible with SPARQL (fixing the '@'s
>>> and '.'s is frustrating for many users). The big question is how
>>> reallistic is it that we can migrate there from our current
>>> widely-deployed '@' directives and how can we balance short-term and
>>> long-term interests.
>> 
>> I'm not convinced there is a major need to align prefixes.  I see it
>> more as a historical artifact.   If the community, want it fine; there opinions expressed for and against.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
>> 
>> But - an observation -
>> 
>> for those goals, one step would be to make '.' optional in the
>> @prefix/@base forms.
> 
> That was my original suggestion (in the case where both syntaxes were supported), and the thing I was hoping to see discussion on. Thanks, Andy.
> 
> .greg
> 
> 


Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2013 16:07:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:59:32 UTC