[Versa] Versa issue: quote madness

[Chimezie Ogbuji]

On 8/15/05, Michael lson <Mike.Olson at fourthought.com> wrote:
> 
> On Aug 12, 2005, at 10:32 PM, Uche Ogbuji wrote:
> 
> > Quotes in Versa can get badly out of hand.  I've commented on this
> > before, but here's Kyle LeBlanc:
> >
> > http://lists.fourthought.com/pipermail/4suite/2004-October/012915.html
> >
> > I think that for Versa 2.0 we should find a better syntax for
> > subexpressions, and that they should be promoted to first class
> > constructs.
> >
> > Basically first class functions which are optionally anonymous.
> >
> 
> How about {}?
> 
> So the idea is that any where a "expression" is require, if it is
> wrapped in {} it would be evaluated in the current context?
 
so to get all items with titles and labels that contain the word
'Cars' from the model:

filter(
  all(),
  {. - dc:title -> contains('Cars')},
  {. - rdfs:label -> contains('Cars')},
)

? 
 
> If we go that far, I think we should change absolute URIs to match NT,
> just to make life easier on all evolved.
> 
> Mike

@'http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#Ontology' - rdfs:comment -> *

becomes

<http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#Ontology> - rdfs:comment -> *

We would probably would want to preserve the original form for
backward compatibility and deprecate it perhaps, but I think *most*
moves toward N3 syntax are a good idea.  This *might* cause the parser
grammer problems with the '<' and '>' characters (if they are adopted
as shorthand form for the lt and gt boolean operator functions).