On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Marcel Molina <[email protected]> wrote: > More namespace nesting would of course increase people's ability to > taxonomize. It's a splippery slope though and we are trying to balance > expressiveness with simplicity. Providing for arbitrarily nested namespaces > increases complexity considerably both from an implementation perspective > and a comprehension perspective.
I am not in favour of arbitrarrily nested, quads are ok to express almost anything useful apart from temporal logic :) (consider a namespace app: subject-verb-object). But I'm ok with you choice, just, as i said, can we at least put some guidelines so we can avoid unintentional conflicts among implementors? E.g. "if you want to store triples and avoid conflicts with other applications use a namespace such as yourapp:subnamespace - key - value" -- Subscription settings: http://groups.google.com/group/twitter-development-talk/subscribe?hl=en
