- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 08:48:38 +0100
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
- CC: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
>>>jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com said:
<snip/>
> let's think about a USE of that bag of statements such as
>
> @prefix rdf: <http//www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#>.
> @prefix a: <http//description.org/schema/>.
> {<http//www.w3.org/Home/Lassila> a:creator "Ora Lassila";
> a:title "Ora Lassila's home page"} :attrbutedTo "Ralph Swick".
<snip/>
> an alternative could be
>
> @prefix rdf: <http//www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#>.
> @prefix log: <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/log#>.
> @prefix a: <http//description.org/schema/>.
> {<http//www.w3.org/Home/Lassila> a:creator "Ora Lassila"} a log:Falsehood.
Here we go again; N3's {} generates parseType="Quote" (or log:quote I
think in later versions). It is unclear what this means in N3 and
I've heard different answers from people, and especially it is
unclear when interpreted in the standard XML syntax. Unknown
parseTypes are, according to M&S, equivalent to literal.
parseType="literal" is not something that can be implemented well
since there multiple ways to handle the content and I've seen this
happen different ways in many apps (I can go into this in great
detail when we finally discuss it)
I thus shudder when I see {} used in N3 examples in order to explain
anything, and especially when used in a context of trying to provide
clear explanations of the RDF model or syntax. Please avoid it, and
avoid using N3 beyond very simple enumeration of statements and
anonymous nodes - i.e. these N3 parts are OK: [] ; . , <> "" @prefix
Dave
Received on Friday, 25 May 2001 03:48:41 UTC