- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 18:06:30 +0100
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- CC: RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Sandro Hawke wrote: > On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 18:42 +0000, RDF Working Group Issue Tracker > wrote: >> RDF-ISSUE-89 (at-prefix): Should Turtle allow SPARQL's PREFIX like @prefix? [RDF Turtle] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/89 >> >> Raised by: Sandro Hawke >> On product: RDF Turtle >> >> The syntaxes of Turtle and SPARQL are very strongly aligned. There's one glaring difference now, I think. Turtle has people use "@prefix" to declare their namespace prefixes, but SPARQL uses "PREFIX". >> >> Surely this is going to confuse and frustrate users. >> >> PROPOSED: Turtle be defined to allow either @prefix or PREFIX, with PREFIX preferred and used in all the examples. > > BTW, I'm sorry for bringing this up so late in the process, but I didn't > step back far enough, earlier, to see it clearly. Like the rest of > you, I've seen and used Turtle (and N3) for so long I'm quite used to > the mandatory at-sign on the prefix and base keywords. > > But when I imagine introducing new people to Turtle, as I expect to be > doing for many years once it becomes a Recommendation, I can't think of > any way to justify that odd character. > > Similarly, while we're on the subject, I can't think of any way to > justify the need for the colon as part of the prefixedName, when the > prefix is empty. (Call fixing this 'the barewords proposal' which > isn't part of issue-89.) > > There is an argument (below) that we couldn't do both of these changes. > But to not do either one seems to me to do a grave disservice to our > future potential users, and (incidentally) to everyone hoping we'll draw > in a lot of users. > > We could do this experiment: find a couple people who've used at least > one formal language before, but never seen Turtle or SPARQL, and ask > them which of these looks like a language they'd rather use: > > @prefix foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/>. > @prefix : <http://example.com/Alice/personal#>. > > :Alice foaf:knows :Bob, :Charlie, :Dave. > > or > > prefix foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/>. > prefix <http://example.com/Alice/personal#>. > > Alice foaf:knows Bob, Charlie, Dave. > > Does anyone doubt the second example would win overwhelmingly? would you resolve Alice, Bob, Charlie, Dave against @base (if defined) or @prefix ? personally I like the @ as it visually shows me easily what is a directive, especially useful when the directives are not only at the top of the document.
Received on Thursday, 10 May 2012 17:07:16 UTC