- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:55:47 -0000
- To: "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net>, "Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN" <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
- Cc: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>, "RDF-IG" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> The whole point of N3 is that is is easy to read and write.
> Putting weird characters in the flow does not serve that well.
Exactly; although, you can represent some of the key words as characters:-
>- prop -> .
is the same as
:subject has :prop of :object .
is the same as
:subject :prop :object .
I don't actually see any need for the key words at all, becasue the last
form is valid to use, and should always make grammatical sense, as long as
an appropriate name for the property is chosen. Likewise, @prefix could
probably just be abbreviated to "@", transforming:-
@prefix : <#> .
:s has :p of :o .
Into:-
@ : <#> .
:s :p :o .
Also, Seth came up (jokingly) with a method of using brackets in a property
to indicate an rdfs:comment. I added an angular bracket to allow for an
rdfs:label/ID:-
:s :([rdfs:label]rdfs:comment) :o .
e.g.
[ :Sean :Seth ] :([Like]Have an interest in) :N3 .
I suppose we could discuss changes to N3 to make it even simpler all day
long, but it works very well in its present state, and we have already used
it for a SWAG Vocabulary [1], and many other tidbits, so I think that
"shortening" it time and time again might lose some of the robustness of
the syntax.
:Homer :sings "We're happy with things the way they are."
[1]
http://swag.semanticweb.org/revision-text?add=termsplayground&format=text/p
lain
--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://purl.org/swag/termsplayground#> .
[ :name "Sean B. Palmer" ] :hasHomepage <http://infomesh.net/sbp/> .
Received on Friday, 26 January 2001 11:57:44 UTC