Ok. Forget the entailment bit. I don't see what harm it can do as a hint though. That's how CWM interprets "=" by the way. And it's nice because otherwise you end up with a lot of blank nodes in your documents when you serialise to RDF/XML, which is ugly. Yes, I know you're not meant to look at RDF/XML, but people do, and they come to silly conclusions based on it. On 3 Oct 2007, at 13:11, Bijan Parsia wrote: > On 3 Oct 2007, at 12:04, Seaborne, Andy wrote: > > [snip] >> It seems strange to build one entailment into the language and not >> others. Keep the synatx as syntax; have entailment done elsewhere. > > I cannot agree more. And I agree utterly. > > Even if you interpret it as a kind of syntactic sugar in that case > and not an entailment, then you are overloading the syntax in a way > that loses the one-to-one correspondence with the graph which is a > strongly useful fact about Turtle. > >> In particular, structured editors might well not want any such >> procesing >> done. > > Indeed. And what Steve said too!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:03 UTC