Re: Consts/CURIEs in PS (was Re: DTB status (on today's agenda) )

> > For the sake of compatibility, I opt for allowing it.
> We are not talking about incompatibility -- just a subset of what some
> other language has (N3). There are other schemes as well and it is not
> clear why we should stick to every little detail of one particular schema.
> Especially since we do not need this complication (notwithstanding your
> next paragraph).
> > As for the question why we need this ("I do not see why we need such 
> > a macro in the first place, if in most case we will be using foo:bar."), 
> > there are IRIs which cannot be written as foo:bar, assuming that bar 
> > needs to be an ncname:
> > e.g. <>
> > cannot be split into a prefix and an ncname.
> Of course there are cases. The question is why do we need this in RIF?
> Where are the examples where would you would desperately need to write
> <> vs. ""^^rif:iri because doing so
> would make your example look ugly? How many occurrences of this
> kind of situation do we have?
> Given that we already (almost) have ciries, I would say that other
> shortcuts (integers, strings) have much higher priority.

FWIW I'm with Michael on this.   I want "<...>" stuff, but I don't think
it's worth worrying about right now.   We can add it later if it's
really warranted.

     -- Sandro

Received on Saturday, 3 May 2008 00:19:17 UTC