Re: [TURTLE] Turtle Inverse Properties

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.)


Received on Monday, 20 August 2012 15:17:14 UTC