Re: RDF-ISSUE-20 (Numeric local part): The prefixed name "ns:123" is legal in SPARQL - should it be legal for Turtle? [RDF Turtle] from Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider on 2011-03-30 (public-rdf-wg@w3.org from March 2011)

From: Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 16:27:20 -0400
To: <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20110330.162720.191499929034658963.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

From: RDF Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Subject: RDF-ISSUE-20 (Numeric local part): The prefixed name "ns:123" is legal in SPARQL - should it be legal for Turtle? [RDF Turtle]
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 14:49:44 -0500

> 
> RDF-ISSUE-20 (Numeric local part): The prefixed name "ns:123" is legal
> in SPARQL - should it be legal for Turtle? [RDF Turtle]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/20
> 
> Raised by: Andy Seaborne
> On product: RDF Turtle
> 
> It is legal in SPARQL 1.0 because of user feedback to an earlier version
> of the grammar when it wasn't (DAWG).

Also, "ns:f.123" and "ns:1.23" 

I think that this is the other addition to "qnames" in SPARQL.

Note that "ns:f." and "ns:1." are not allowed.

peter

Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2011 20:28:05 UTC