[sc34wg3] CTM draft dtd. 2007-09-09 - Proposal for IRIs

[Lars Heuer]

[...]
> 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).

<sarcasm>
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
handles IRIs.
</sarcasm>

Best regards,
Lars
-- 
http://www.semagia.com