[sc34wg3] CTM - Notation for subject identifiers / locators

[Xuân Baldauf]

Lars Heuer wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Comments against 0975 <http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/open/0975.htm>
>
> Not a big issue, but why does Kyoto propose to use "=" as indicator
> for a subject identifier and "~" for a subject locator? TMQL uses
> exactly the opposite notation.
>
> Why do we need a indicator for subject identifier at all? In the
> current CTM draft every IRI is an subject identifier iff it is not
> prefixed by "=".
>
> IMO the "=" for subject locators is nicer, because it indicates that
> the resource *is* (=) the subject.
>
> Proposal:
> - Use "=" for subject locators
> - Remove the "~" as prefix for IRIs, any IRI without a prefix is a
> subject identifier
>   
I agree.
>
> Best regards,
> Lars
>   


Robert Barta wrote:
> [...]
>> IMO the "=" for subject locators is nicer, because it indicates that
>> the resource *is* (=) the subject.
>>     
>
> Definitely. And my experience shows that this is also the less
> frequent case.
>
>   
I agree. That is also my experience.

Xuân.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.isotopicmaps.org/pipermail/sc34wg3/attachments/20080130/e409fc30/attachment.htm