- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:06:04 +0100
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
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. Eric brought up nesting - in fact SPARQL does not have nesting for data, only in query patterns. The language for SPARQL Update only allows: INSERT DATA { <s> <p> <o> . GRAPH <g> { <s> <p> 123 . } } Andy
Received on Thursday, 29 September 2011 12:06:42 UTC