My 2 cents... Regardless of the advantages, issues and objections on this very proposal... I think we should be careful about priorities. In my view the goal should be to have an absolutely stable turtle language that is as closely compatible to the language used in SPARQL as possible (it cannot be 100%, because, for example, SPARQL uses PREFIX and turtle uses @prefix). Personally, I would prefer _not_ to start discussions about new language features for now, much as it can be an enjoyable technical discussion:-). Maybe we can do something like that in a next round, but the priorities should be elsewhere in my view. And thanks to Dave for starting this... Ivan Story Henry wrote: > What about = > > That would be a nice addition. :-) > > Especially as it allows one to group statements together like this: > > :me foaf:knows [ = <http://eg.com/joe/>; > foaf:name "Joe Smith" ] . > > > Henry > > > > On 3 Oct 2007, at 09:03, Dave Beckett wrote: > >> >> Michael Schneider wrote: >>> Oh, what a pitty! Again no special syntax support for reification. Well, >>> perhaps next time... >>> >>> ;-) >> >> No, there's pretty much zero chance of me adding convenience syntax in >> Turtle for a bad idea like reification. Just use multiple graphs or >> N3 formulae (which is not RDF). >> >> Dave >> > -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2007 12:57:06 UTC