Re: Changing @instanceof to @typeof

Hello,

is it only me (and Ralph it seems in the minutes) who find @typeof
directionally wrong? Why not @oftype or @hastype?

A superficial reading make it seem as "instance" was replaced by its
exact inverse: "type", which obviously cannot mean the same thing. Or
am I just misinterpreting how @typeof should be read?

(Part of the thinking of "instanceof" was based on the N3 shorthand
"is ... of", which is N3:s version of @rev. N3 also has "has" as
syntax sugar for e.g. '<#me> has foaf:name "Niklas".', why I suggested
@hastype last year [1]. Along with @a. ;) )

Best regards,
Niklas

[1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jul/0148.html>



On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 2:32 AM, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net> wrote:
>
>  It was considered this morning, and it was outvoted.
>
>  -Ben
>
>
>
>  On Apr 3, 2008, at 5:16 PM, Elias Torres <elias@torrez.us> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > I had sent an email asking to consider @kind as it picked up more
> interest.
> >
> > Is it too late? or did it get rejected at one of the meetings?
> >
> > -Elias
> >
> > On Apr 3, 2008, at 5:58 PM, Shane McCarron wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > As per my action item earlier today, I have updated the editors draft to
> reflect the resolution that the name @instanceof be changed to @typeof.  I
> have also updated the DTD.  Note that until implementations and the test
> cases are updated, things will not validate!
> > >
> > > Draft is at http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20080403/
> > >
> > > --
> > > Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
> > > Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
> > > ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Received on Friday, 4 April 2008 15:01:04 UTC