namespaced/keywords instead of namespaced:keywords

[phiweger]

my argument is readibility: when you specify a dict, then there are many ":" which (imho) decreases readibility, compare

        'mock:type': 'mock.type:seq',
        'mock.seq:id': 'a1',
        'mock.seq:string': 'ACTGA',
        'mock:description': 'some foo from bar',

with

        'mock/type': 'mock.type:seq',
        'mock.seq/id': 'a1',
        'mock.seq/string': 'ACTGA',
        'mock/description': 'some foo from bar',

[metasoarous]

OK; Noted. I agree that / is more readable, and like that it matches with Datomic/Clojure. However, : matches traditional RDF usage more directly, so this should be taken into consideration. We'll definitely have to settle on something.

[phiweger]

are there any downstream consequences for either option? (like interop issues)

[metasoarous]

Yes; Certainly interop is a consideration. Will users be interfacing more with traditional RDF stores, or databases like Datomic/DataScript/Datsync(Replikativ)? But that's easy to work around. The more subtle but important consequence is in terms of how we explain these ideas to folks. And there we're sort of split, because we're espousing all these great things from RDF, but taking Datomic's design decisions for usability. So it's a little hard to say.

[metasoarous]

The other option is to just use dots everywhere, since this is a python library, and that's how python namespaced. So instead of 'mock.seq:description' or 'mock.seq/description', it would just be 'mock.seq.description'.

[phiweger]

I like the entity:value separation in the namespace, which the "only-dots" syntax of mock.seq.description blurs, I mean what.keeps.people.from.doing:that ;)

what do you think of mock-seq.description?