Re: Changing @instanceof to @typeof

Hi Elias,

Just checking that you know the issue was voted on and resolved, in
yesterday's telecon. :)

I mention it only to save everyone the trouble of getting out their
thesauri and then posting hundreds of different words that essentially
mean 'class' or 'type' or 'thing' or 'instance'...we got one, and we
might as well stick with it. ;)

Regards,

Mark

On 04/04/2008, Elias Torres <elias@torrez.us> wrote:
>
>  Niklas Lindström wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
>
>  @a sounds perfect to me.
>
>  -Elias
>
>


-- 
  Mark Birbeck

  mark.birbeck@x-port.net | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
  http://www.x-port.net | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com

  x-port.net Ltd. is registered in England and Wales, number 03730711
  The registered office is at:

    2nd Floor
    Titchfield House
    69-85 Tabernacle Street
    London
    EC2A 4RR

Received on Friday, 4 April 2008 15:46:19 UTC