<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Lars Heuer wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:1747386617.20080127193626@semagia.com" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi all,
Comments against 0975 <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/open/0975.htm"><http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/open/0975.htm></a>
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
</pre>
</blockquote>
I agree.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1747386617.20080127193626@semagia.com" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Best regards,
Lars
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
Robert Barta wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:20080129092815.GG3803@mando.int.devc.at"
type="cite">[...]
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">IMO the "=" for subject locators is nicer, because it indicates that
the resource *is* (=) the subject.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Definitely. And my experience shows that this is also the less
frequent case.
</pre>
</blockquote>
I agree. That is also my experience.<br>
<br>
Xuân.<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>