- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:32:54 +0100
- To: "Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>
- Cc: Steve Harris <swh@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, semantic-web@w3.org, www-rdf-rules@w3.org
Boley, Harold wrote: > This is referring to > > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/FLD#Well-formed_Terms_and_Formulas > > Example 2 (A nested RIF-FLD group annotated with metadata). > > where it says (emphasis added): > > For better readability, we use the compact URI notation which assumes > that prefixes are macro-expanded into IRIs. As explained earlier, this > is just a space-saving device and *not part of the RIF syntax*. > > We tried to use a different (italic) font in the wiki for the still > 'meta-level' compact URI notation: > > <tt>dc</tt> ''expands into'' > <tt><nowiki>http://</nowiki>dublincore.org/documents/dces/</tt> > > Obviously, this was not clear enough. > Ah, thanks for the clarification. > I agree that XQuery, SPARQL, RIF, etc. should converge > on a common syntax soon. > Of those listed, XQuery and SPARQL are both completed RECs; so RIF has by far the most flexibility. Would it make sense for RIF to take SPARQL notation as a starting point in any concrete syntaxes? > -- Harold >
Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2008 12:34:08 UTC