Markus Krötzsch wrote on 03/25/07 15:56:


== New proposals ==

1) Keep everything as it is.
2) Keep the syntax :: and :=, but otherwise unify Attributes and Relations 
(possibly calling all of them properties). Do checks to ensure that ":=" 
and "::" are used with properties of the right type.
3) Unify Attributes and Relations completely, allowing some Type:Wikipage and 
adopting Type:String as a default that catches everything.

I liked Günther's syntax proposal. i suggest using Type:String for any property that is not of the form [[prop]]. by using such a form, the user indicates the type of property is Type:Wikipage. This will also solve the annotation removal issue.

so: [[capital:=[[Berlin|alternate text]]]] [[located in:=Europe|alternate text 2]] means Berlin is a wiki page and Europe is a value. if at some point someone decides to change the type of 'located in' to Type:Wikipage, there's no problem (that is, the braces around the property value have meaning only if the type of property is not defined)
4) Unify Attributes and Properties and use a template-like syntax that is 
always put around the annotated wikitext. 

* No annotation: 1,000,000   [[USA]]
* 2): [[population:=1,000,000]]   [[is located in::USA]]
* 3): [[population:=1,000,000]]   [[is located in:=USA]]
* 4): {{population:=1,000,000}}   {{is located in:=[[USA]]}}

Feel free to order those proposals according to your preference (and let's 
ignore details like ":=" vs. "::" for now).



On Friday 16 March 2007 17:31, Markus Krötzsch wrote:
Hello SMW users!

Please take a few minutes to decide upon the future of SMW syntax. Short
answers suffice.


Our increasing impression is that the distinction between Relations and
Attributes in SMW is no longer the best solution. It was useful when ":="
still behaved mostly different from "::", but it seems that the growing
number of types of attributes might as well include a type "wikipage" that
makes them act like relations. This could simplify wiki syntax as well as
explaining SMW to new users.

So, dear SMW users, what do you think?

(1) Should we merge Relations with Attributes by providing a new datatype,
and by treating untyped attributes as relations by default (instead of
rejecting them as done now)? Why?/Why not?

(2) If only one remains, should we rather use the syntax "::" or ":=" for
annotations? The syntax ":=" suggests a way of writing inverse relations in
queries via "=:", but maybe this is not obvious enough to be a good idea.
Which syntax looks more user-friendly in general?

(3) Should we call the remaining semantic elements "Relations"
or "Attributes"?

(4) How would the type "wikipage" that is used for emulating relations be
called? "Article", "Page", "Wikipage", "Link", ...?

Your feedback is greatly appreciated.




------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash

_______________________________________________ Semediawiki-user mailing list

Ittay Dror
Chief Architect,
R&D, Qlusters Inc.
Phone: +972-3-6081994

openQRM - Data Center Provisioning