Damien Morton <Damien.Morton@acm.org>:
[snip]
> { 1:2, 3:4 } <--> dict([slice(1,2), slice(3,4)])
>
> For RDF notation, you could then happily write:
>
> {1:2:3, 4:5:6, 7:8:9} --> dict([slice(1,2,3), slice(4,5,6),
> slice(7,8,9)])
Hm. Is it really necessary to invent a new notation for this? The link
between these tuple-like structures (e.g. 1:2:3) and slices seems
tenuous and very confusing to me. If we're not going with the W3C XML
notation, why not use a more Pythonic one?
Assuming that we'll eventually get sets, should the
Python-RDF-notation simply be a set of 3-tuples? E.g:
{(1, 2, 3), (4, 5, 6), (7, 8, 9)}
--
Magnus Lie Hetland The Anygui Project
http://hetland.org http://anygui.org
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4