- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:53:50 +0000
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- CC: Thomas Steiner <tomac@google.com>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 23/03/11 14:46, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-03-23 at 13:55 +0000, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>
>> # These are not strict Turtle where everything
>> # must be "subject-predicate" form.
>> # They are SPARQL.
>>
>> ("a" "b" "c" ) .
>
> This should be flagged a little more clearly as "NOT RDF". A mapping
> can reject this one and still be 100% RDF.
To be clear - it is RDF (see the N-triples file) - but you can't write
it like that in Turtle. You'd need to write part out in long hand.
[] rdf:first "a" ;
rdf:rest ("b" "c") .
>> [ :p (1 2) , (3 4) ] .
>
> Oh that's really not in Turtle? Sad, if true.
Again, it is RDF, you just can't write it like that in Turtle.
[] :p (1 2) , (3 4) .
>>
>> Attached:
>> D.ttl (the data above)
>> D.nt (converted to N-triples)
>
> Brilliant! And cruel! I'm trying to imagine Tom sitting on the
> plane sorting this out against the various specs. He might find he'd
> rather just write the code.
And then there are illformed-for-shorthand-but-legal-RDF list-like
structures.
_:a rdf:first "a" ;
rdf:first "b" ;
rdf:rest _:a .
They are cruel.
>
> -- Sandro
>
Andy
Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2011 14:54:25 UTC