[sc34wg3] CTM draft dtd. 2007-09-09 - Proposal for IRIs
heuer at semagia.com
Fri Oct 19 11:32:45 EDT 2007
> IMO CTM should allow *both* syntaxes: Either an IRI within angle
> brackets or without angle brackets (as TMQL does).
Well, angle brackets (< >) were removed for TMQL in Leipzig, so my
proposal for CTM has not a bright future, I guess. ;)
IMO it is the wrong decision. If the committee would have decided that
IRIs must always be enclosed in angle brackets, I could understand it
(while I proposed to allow both syntaxes), but the removal is wrong
(reasons are listed in the proposal).
In Montréal the advanced QNames of CTM were removed in reference to
SPARQL not supporting them and for other reasons.
Maybe the committee should take another look how SPARQL
More information about the sc34wg3