- From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 14:30:41 +0100
- To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 11:51:57AM +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
> > yes it makes sense - but I then do not understand why we need to make
> > the syntax so much N3 like, using PREFIX and use :prefix notation
> > instead of current RDQL USING prefix FOR <URI>
>
> RDQL syntax can't handle the default prefix.
How about ommiting the FOR for the default?
USING <http://my.default.prefix>,
ex FOR <http://example.com/>
- Steve
Received on Tuesday, 31 August 2004 13:30:46 UTC