- From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 22:53:44 -0400
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- CC: Gavin Carothers <gavin@carothers.name>, RDF-WG WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, public-rdf-comments@w3.org, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
On 8/17/2012 3:58 PM, David Booth wrote: > On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 11:30 -0700, Gavin Carothers wrote: > [ . . . ] >> Objections to both original syntax and revised syntax >> ===================================================== >> >> Turtle is a reasonably settled languages, changes made by the working >> group so far have been limited to areas of existing differences in >> implementation. >> >> No demand over years of implementation experience > I think that may be slightly misleading, because Turtle was not > previously standardized, and hence was on the same footing as N3, and > those who wanted to use this feature simply considered their RDF to be > N3 instead of Turtle. I.e., there was no *need* to demand it in Turtle > because Turtle was not previously chosen over N3 for standardization. In turn, I think this is misleading -- Turtle has far more implementations than N3, and so -- standard or not -- has had far more opportunity for users of those implementations (of which there are many) to demand this feature in a volume that would have lead to it being adopted. This has not happened even a single time that I know of. Given the scarcity of N3 implementations, I sincerely doubt that users simply abandoned their existing Turtle toolkits and picked up an N3 toolkit instead so that they could use inverse property syntax. I haven't weighed in on the discussion before, so I'll give my feeling here. I'm not motivated by the use cases for this feature, and I think that the costs (as enumerated by Gavin and others) are way too high to change Turtle in this way. I support not adding inverse property syntax to Turtle. Lee > > [ . . . ] >> 2. Add ^ property path syntax to Turtle. > +1. I like it a lot. Conciseness improves clarity, which reduces > errors. > >> 1.1. Allowing "literals" in any subject position by syntax, >> however the RDF model disallows literal as subject. (As SPARQL in >> query blocks, however SPARQL disallows path syntax in triple assertion >> syntax) > +1. SPARQL could be fixed in the next version to allow path syntax in > triple assertion syntax if the SPARQL WG is too tired to change that in > SPARQL now. > >> 1.2. Attempting to limit use of "literals" in subject position to >> only ^ predicates in grammar (Not as SPARQL and SPARQL disallows path >> syntax in triple assertion syntax.) > -0.5. No need to complicate the grammar. > >> 3. Add both ^ property path syntax and "is ... of" syntax. > -1. To my mind, that would just add pointless complexity. Standardize > one or the other but not both. > > >
Received on Sunday, 19 August 2012 02:54:11 UTC