- From: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 15:45:53 -0700
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
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. Finally, although I don't know what actually triggered Sandro's question about whether the file contains the complete graph or not, it seems to me that the {} proposal makes it look like what I'm seeing is the complete graph when it may not be. I know it's up to us to define that there is no such implication but I'd rather select a syntax that is more intuitive and less likely to mislead a casual reader/user who may not have read the spec carefully enough. Regards. -- Arnaud Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group From: Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> To: <public-rdf-wg@w3.org> Date: 09/28/2011 09:21 AM Subject: today's minutes available Sent by: public-rdf-wg-request@w3.org at http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-09-28
Received on Wednesday, 28 September 2011 22:46:42 UTC