Jeff Thompson wrote:
> At the beginning of SMW development, the idea was that, to make everyone
> happy, anyone could create any property that they want and give it whatever
> meaning they want in their wiki. That's great for making everyone feel
> included (even the wiki users who just want to j
2008/6/8 Rolf Lampa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Markus Krötzsch skrev:
>> could ever be name clashes on "."? (Is there anyone who ever used a
>> "." within a property name?) I can do both ... whatever most users
>> prefer.
>
> Yes, in Mediawiki I planned to use dots for just that. Sometimes there'e
> a
Markus Krötzsch skrev:
> could ever be name clashes on "."? (Is there anyone who ever used a
> "." within a property name?) I can do both ... whatever most users
> prefer.
Yes, in Mediawiki I planned to use dots for just that. Sometimes there'e
a need to distinguish Class1.PropertyName from Cla
At the beginning of SMW development, the idea was that, to make everyone
happy, anyone could create any property that they want and give it whatever
meaning they want in their wiki. That's great for making everyone feel
included (even the wiki users who just want to jump in without thinking
about
I'd like to cast my vote in favor of the dot (.) notation. I have some
experience with RLT and mixed RLT/LTR contexts and the dot would be
preferable.
-Robert
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 6:45 AM, Markus Krötzsch <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Freitag, 6. Juni 2008, Sergey Chernyshev wrote:
> > Can
On Freitag, 6. Juni 2008, Sergey Chernyshev wrote:
> Can I suggest to use '->' instead of dots - this will make it much less
> probable to have in Property names, but still reasonable as syntax.
I though about that one too, but I was not sure if it is preferred
internationally. Would the right-to
On Freitag, 6. Juni 2008, Jon Lang wrote:
> Markus Krötzsch wrote:
> > Directly storing the annotations implied by inverses is a possible
> > approach, but it requires me to rethink some parts of the storage engine.
> > Currently, the subject of a property and the source of this annotation is
> > t
