- From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 17:50:42 +0200
- To: Thomas Lörtsch <tl@rat.io>
- Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>, RDF-star Working Group <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
Hi Thomas,
This is where I think we see things quite differently:
> Also the annotation syntax doesn’t roundtrip reliably
>
> IN
> << :s :p :o >> :src :A .
> :s :p :o {| :src :B |} .
>
> OUT
> :s :p :o {| :src :A |} .
> :s :p :o {| :src :B |} .
>
> There goes support for unasserted statements.
I see no problem with the data here, apart from redundancy in the
representations making them appear rather odd. But those two forms
mean the same.
The most terse form would be:
:s :p :o {| :src :A |} {| :src :B |} .
And all forms mean:
:s :p :o .
_:r1 rdf:reifies <<( :s :p :o )>> .
_:r1 :src :A .
_:r2 rdf:reifies <<( :s :p :o )>> .
_:r2 :src :B .
A very basic (or streaming "best-effort") Turtle serializer may very
well end up with:
<< :s :p :o ~ _:r1 >> .
:s :p :o .
_:r2 :src :B .
<< :s :p :o ~ _:r2 >> .
_:r1 :src :A .
Or some permutation thereof. That is perfectly valid and well-formed.
Not *pretty*, of course, and a pretty-printer requires some more
resources (memory/indexing).
Best regards,
Niklas
Received on Thursday, 15 August 2024 15:51:13 UTC