- From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:49:06 +0000
- To: "'RDF Data Access Working Group'" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 04:30:49 +0000, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> Steve Harris wrote:
> >On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 04:58:16 +0000, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> >
> >>== 4 == Syntactic support for reification
> >>
> >>Some people use reification and use it a lot - some people use named
> >>graph-like approaches and avoid reification - most people just don't use
> >>either.
> >
> >
> >The others seem good, and I have no opinion on this...
>
> In progress. I have put this in and have a @@ToDo@@ to explain it in rq23.
>
> Also ?id << ?s ?p ?o >>
>
> ?id rdf:subject ?s
> ?id rdf:pedicate ?p
> ?id rdf:object ?o
>
> Also x:z << ?s ?p ?o >>
>
> x:z rdf:subject ?s
> x:z rdf:pedicate ?p
> x:z rdf:object ?o
I'd like to repeat my dislike for this syntax, << and >> have been used
for a lot of things in other languages, and this seems like an odd one - I
get the reference, guillemets are quotation marks*, and << looks a bit like
a guillemet, but it still seems ugly to me.
If the group wants some sugar for reified triples then I'd prefer it if it
was more inkeeping with the rest of the SPARQL syntax, so something like
REIFIED ?x { ?s ?p ?o } or fn:reified(?x, ?s, ?p, ?o) or similar.
- Steve
* NB not all countries use outward guillemets, some use >> foo >> or
>> foo <<.
Received on Thursday, 10 March 2005 17:49:13 UTC