- 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