I'd like to cast my vote in favor of the dot (.) notation. I have some
experience with RLT and mixed RLT/LTR contexts and the dot would be
preferable.
-Robert
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 6:45 AM, Markus Krötzsch <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Freitag, 6. Juni 2008, Sergey Chernyshev wrote:
> > Can I suggest to use '->' instead of dots - this will make it much less
> > probable to have in Property names, but still reasonable as syntax.
>
> I though about that one too, but I was not sure if it is preferred
> internationally. Would the right-to-left languages be OK with that too (it
> would of course be right-to-left as well, but still)? Do you think there
> could ever be name clashes on "."? (Is there anyone who ever used a "."
> within a property name?) I can do both ... whatever most users prefer.
>
> Here is again the new proposal in comparison to the old one:
>
> {{#ask: [[works at->located in->population::>1000000]] }}
>
> Old:
>
> {{#ask: [[works at.located in.population::>1000000]] }}
>
> (Personally, I find the old slightly more readable, maybe because the . is
> smaller and just one symbol).
>
> -- Markus
>
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 6:02 AM, Markus Krötzsch <
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I have a proposal for a simplification in #ask query syntax that I
> would
> > > like
> > > to get some feedback on.
> > >
> > > If you currently ask for property chains, you need something like the
> > > following:
> > >
> > > {{#ask: [[works at::<q>[[located
> > > in::<q>[[population::>1000000]]</q>]]</q>]]}}
> > >
> > > to find someone working at an organisation located in a place with more
> > > than
> > > 1000000 inhabitants. The many [[ and <q> are sure annoying.
> > >
> > > My proposal is to instead allow writing
> > >
> > > {{#ask: [[works at.located in.population::>1000000]] }}
> > >
> > > with exactly the same interpretation as above.
> > >
> > > Effects:
> > > * "." in property names become problematic (though some escape can be
> > > provided
> > > to allow them),
> > > * the syntax becomes shorter, and maybe also more readable.
> > >
> > > Would that be an improvement? Other comments? (There is also another
> > > issue regarding the syntax with <q>, but I will have to check what can
> be
> > > done there before proposing alternatives.)
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > Markus
> > >
> > > --
> > > Markus Krötzsch
> > > Semantic MediaWiki http://semantic-mediawiki.org
> > > http://korrekt.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
> > > It's the best place to buy or sell services for
> > > just about anything Open Source.
> > > http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Semediawiki-devel mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
>
>
>
> --
> Markus Krötzsch
> Semantic MediaWiki http://semantic-mediawiki.org
> http://korrekt.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
> It's the best place to buy or sell services for
> just about anything Open Source.
> http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php
> _______________________________________________
> Semediawiki-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
>
>
--
Roses are red,Violets are blue,I'm schizophrenic,and so am I.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php
_______________________________________________
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
