- From: Alberto Reggiori <alberto@asemantics.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 15:54:39 +0200
- To: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On Aug 31, 2004, at 3:30 PM, Steve Harris wrote: > > 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/> this a clever one! congrats Steve :-) Alberto
Received on Tuesday, 31 August 2004 13:54:41 UTC