- From: Thomas Lörtsch <tl@rat.io>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 14:58:27 +0100
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Cc: public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org
> On 11. Jan 2024, at 14:46, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/01/2024 12:41, Thomas Lörtsch wrote:
>> The beauty of the annotation syntax
>> :s :p :o {| :a :b |}
>> is not its precise syntactic form, but that it fixes all the subtle
>> differences that otherwise we have to define, disambiguate, make users
>> aware of and bridge with duct tape.
>
> Maybe that is where we are. Annotation syntax only.
I would take it as a baseline, heavily promoted in examples.
> No referring to triples not in the graph.
I would also tend to skip all the rest, if only there wasn’t a pretty strong demand for unasserted assertions - so strong that even pretty knowledgeable people misunderstand RDF standard reification as providing just that (which arguably contradicts the semantics the spec defines for the reification vocabulary).
So putting the annotation syntax front and center, providing a very explicit mapping to N-Triples, and providing all necessary vocabulary for more niche use cases *too* would IMO be the best way to shield the annotation syntax from misuse *and* make everybody reasonably happy (except those of course that need graphs ;) .
Thomas
> Andy
>
Received on Thursday, 11 January 2024 13:58:38 UTC