- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 17:21:35 +0000
- To: Yves Raimond <Yves.Raimond@bbc.co.uk>
- Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, nathan@webr3.org, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 1 March 2011 17:16, Yves Raimond <Yves.Raimond@bbc.co.uk> wrote: > For that reason, I would go for the N3 notation, i.e. :o is :p of :s. Is that in SPARQL 1.1? Any thoughts on the I18N aspect of choosing between keywords vs punctuation? How does the use of english words 'is', 'of' look for people who don't speak English (or related? or latin-script?) languages. What would be most readable e.g. in China? BTW as a native English speaker, I find this 'is' and 'of' construction somewhat confusion, esp when properties themselves have 'of' embedded in their name (generally a mistake --- I wish we'd called rdfs:subClassOf rdf:superClass instead). If I tell you ... :c1 is rdfs:subClassOf of :c2 ...how long does it take you to be able to tell me which of :c1 or :c2 is the more general class? cheers, Dan
Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2011 17:22:08 UTC