Re: punctuationSyntax

On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 12:20:59PM +0200, Jeen Broekstra wrote:
> 
> Dave Beckett wrote:
> 
> 
> >As a particular criticism, I don't like the << ... >> reification
> >syntax, it has never been asked for as an addition to Turtle (a few
> >years experience)  and I don't need it for any of my applications.
> 
> Actually we have had some examples of people using the reification
> shorthand syntax in SeRQL. Example case (actually a pretty exotic one
> where this is used in the CONSTRUCT to create new reifications):
> 
> http://www.openrdf.org/forum/mvnforum/viewthread?lastpage=yes&thread=404
> 
> From a point of view of QL adequacy it seems a bit poor to not add
> some sort of convenience shortcut for reification. After all, the
> concept is part of the RDF abstract model.
> 
> That being said, I'm not particularly fond of the double angle bracket
> syntax either - yet more brackets to clutter up the syntax. So,
> neither a strong like nor strong dislike in my case, but I felt the
> additional data point might be useful.

There's a large camp that feels that RDF reification is broken [BR].
By providing a syntax to address reification, we'd be marrying a
particulra form. I would really like to avoid this controversy by
not addressing reification at all in this version of the QL.


[BR] http://www.w3.org/2001/12/attributions/#superman
-- 
-eric

office: +81.466.49.1170 W3C, Keio Research Institute at SFC,
                        Shonan Fujisawa Campus, Keio University,
                        5322 Endo, Fujisawa, Kanagawa 252-8520
                        JAPAN
        +1.617.258.5741 NE43-344, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02144 USA
cell:   +81.90.6533.3882

(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.