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 <markus@semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote:
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-left languages be OK with that too (it
would of course be right-to-left as well, but still)? Do you think there
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.

Here is again the new proposal in comparison to the old one:

{{#ask: [[works at->located in->population::>1000000]] }}

Old:

{{#ask: [[works at.located in.population::>1000000]] }}

(Personally, I find the old slightly more readable, maybe because the . is
smaller and just one symbol).

-- Markus

>
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 6:02 AM, Markus Krötzsch <
>
> markus@semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have a proposal for a simplification in #ask query syntax that I would
> > like
> > to get some feedback on.
> >
> > If you currently ask for property chains, you need something like the
> > following:
> >
> > {{#ask: [[works at::<q>[[located
> > in::<q>[[population::>1000000]]</q>]]</q>]]}}
> >
> > to find someone working at an organisation located in a place with more
> > than
> > 1000000 inhabitants. The many [[ and <q> are sure annoying.
> >
> > My proposal is to instead allow writing
> >
> > {{#ask: [[works at.located in.population::>1000000]] }}
> >
> > with exactly the same interpretation as above.
> >
> > Effects:
> > * "." in property names become problematic (though some escape can be
> > provided
> > to allow them),
> > * the syntax becomes shorter, and maybe also more readable.
> >
> > Would that be an improvement? Other comments? (There is also another
> > issue regarding the syntax with <q>, but I will have to check what can be
> > done there before proposing alternatives.)
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Markus
> >
> > --
> > Markus Krötzsch
> > Semantic MediaWiki    http://semantic-mediawiki.org
> > http://korrekt.org    markus@semantic-mediawiki.org
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
> > It's the best place to buy or sell services for
> > just about anything Open Source.
> > http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php
> > _______________________________________________
> > Semediawiki-devel mailing list
> > Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel



--
Markus Krötzsch
Semantic MediaWiki    http://semantic-mediawiki.org
http://korrekt.org    markus@semantic-mediawiki.org

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php
_______________________________________________
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel




--
Roses are red,Violets are blue,I'm schizophrenic,and so am I.