- From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
- Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 18:30:08 +0200
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Le 22/08/2012 16:47, Sandro Hawke a écrit : > On 08/22/2012 10:26 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >> On 8/22/12 9:38 AM, Steve Harris wrote: >>> On 2012-08-22, at 09:28, Antoine Zimmermann wrote: >>>> And if one wants to quote graphs, maybe they should use double quotes: >>>> >>>> <g> ex:hasGraph "<s> <p> <o>"^^ex:Graph . >>> Agreed about that. >> +1 > > Surely you mean ex:TurtleGraph. Maybe, whatever, it was just an example. In both cases, it makes a valid and consistent RDF Graph. Then it's all a matter of having the right datatype map in the application. > So what would you do in JSON-LD or RDFa or RDF/XML? Still a turtle-graph > literal? > > And have you tried to use this for real, with real URIs? Use? What do you mean? I can put it on the Web, it validates, I can do RDFS reasoning with it, etc. But to be useful, you'd need to to do something specific in your application to deal with these special literals. But if you don't care about quoted graphs, it's not causing interoperability breakage as it's valid, good'old RDF. > > I could live with it if there were a syntactic sugar, probably involving > curly braces. :-) Yes, the syntax is not really practical. > > - s > >>> >>> Another (uglier!) representation would be >>> <g> ex:hasGraph >>> <data:text/turtle;charset=UTF-8,%3Cs%3E%20%3Cp%3E%20%3Co%3E> . >>> >>> Which would also allow you to make statements about the quoted graph >>> <data:text/turtle;charset=UTF-8,%3Cs%3E%20%3Cp%3E%20%3Co%3E> dc:date >>> "2012-08-22T14:29:23Z"^^xsd:dateTime . >> >> +1 >> >>> >>> - Steve >>> >> >> > > > -- Antoine Zimmermann ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne 158 cours Fauriel 42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2 France Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03 Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66 http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2012 16:30:36 UTC