- From: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 07:13:29 -0700
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
> From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> > > On 28/09/11 23:45, Arnaud Le Hors wrote: > > Hi all, > > I was on a cellphone driving and it was too noisy for me to voice my > > opinion then but I meant to say that, regarding the Graphs in Turtle > > question, I find the @graph proposal more appealing than the {} one. I > > think it is more consistent with what we already have in Turtle. > > > > It might sound silly but on a practical level I also find it convenient to > > be able to add an @graph statement in my existing document without having > > to re-indent all the following lines the way I would with the {} proposal. > > I know that's not necessarily a high priority criteria but at the same > > time Turtle was invented to make it easy for humans to write and read rdf > > so I'd argue it's not totally off base either. > > Indentation isn't required when using {} in TriG: > > <g> { <s> <p> <p> } > > is a legal TriG document as is: > > <g> { > <s> <p> <p> > } > > so you do have the effect of a small amount of extra text around an > existing Turtle document to make it a TriG document. Like Tuttle, you > can use white space as you want. Of course. All I meant is that it's the natural thing to do and because I'm anal I would "need" to indent them. :-) -- Arnaud Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group
Received on Monday, 3 October 2011 14:14:30 UTC