- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 16:16:31 +0100
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 20/08/12 15:24, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > On 8/20/12 10:14 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> >> >> On 20/08/12 14:20, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >>> We have to teach RDF by encouraging folks to craft Turtle by hand, as >>> a first step. Making triples visible is the key to this endeavor. >>> Historically, as exemplified by RDF/XML, losing the triple in syntax >>> ultimately loses the plot. IMHO., HTML with RDFa or Micordata embeded >>> don't address this fundamental issue, neither does JSON-LD (which is >>> for JS developers). >>> >>> The value of TimBL's point is best appreciated once there's >>> acceptance of the notion that folks (profile: end-user and/or >>> integrator / tech plumber) will ultimately start the Linked Data >>> journey by crafting Turtle by hand. >>> >>> Unlike HTML, crafting Turtle by hand is both useful and extremely >>> practical. >> >> >> Kingsley, >> >> I agree that the clarity of triples is the major win with Turtle. We >> have been recommending that to people who have got lost in RDF/XML ... >> all too many of them! >> >> > Making triples visible is the key to this endeavor. >> >> This an argument for not including reverse path syntax, right? Makes >> the syntax close to the triples. Inverse properties are in the data >> model. """Inverse properties are not in the data model.""" >> >> Andy >> >> >> > Andy, > > I think the extension can be made in a non detrimental way to Turtle. As > you know, we support it, but we don't necessarily put it at the front > door when introducing Linked Data via Turtle. In fact, I completely > forgot about our implementation until I had a conversation with > @openlink:ivan . > > My argument is in support of TimBL's suggestion with the goal of getting > it in now without necessarily having it at the front door. Basically, as > folks get familiar with Turtle the benefits of the tweak become clearer. > This is ultimately about avoiding a future protracted effort -- on the > standardization front -- relating to this kind of syntax sugar. So you support adding "is...of" and are against adding the syntax "^" for inverse properties? Do you support, in your product, the "has" syntax of N3? What about the N3 (different from the proposal here) style "^" and "/"? (N3 is a lot more than just extra pieces of syntax - it's not (just) a data format - it's a proposed way of working and exchanging such working (rules) on the web.) Andy
Received on Monday, 20 August 2012 15:17:14 UTC