Re: Reified triple syntax

> Seeing "<< :r", the parser can't tell if that is a subject or a reifier id. Initial placement is possible at the cost of more complicated rules or a lookahead of 2+ which limits the implementation tooling available.

+1


W

> On Sep 19, 2024, at 11:50 AM, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Forked thread.
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2024Sep/0062.html
> 
> On 19/09/2024 11:17, Franconi Enrico wrote:
>> On 19 Sep 2024, at 17:44, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote:
>>> The syntax for optionally naming the refiier in an occurrence changed.
>>> 
>>> Occurrence syntax: << :id | :s :p :o >> :pp :oo
>>> ==>
>>> Occurrence syntax: << :s :p :o ~ :id >> :pp :oo
>> 
>> Let me voice my personal opinion about this change: I don’t like it,
> since it it much less legible to me.
>> If you really insist on having the “~” symbol, I’d rather prefer:
>>  << :id  ~ :s :p :o >> :pp :oo.
>> since it emphasise in a direct way that the denotation of that term
> is “:id”.
>> —e.
> 
> Position:
> 
> Having the reifier id at the end is the same style as annotation.
> 
> # Reified triple declaration
> << :s :p :o ~ :r >> .
> 
> :s :p :o ~ :r .
> :s :p :o ~ :r  {| :q :z |} .
> 
> Having it "pre" in one case and "post" in the other is a bit strange IMO.
> 
> On a technical level, it keeps the grammar requirements simple.
> 
> Seeing "<< :r", the parser can't tell if that is a subject or a reifier id. Initial placement is possible at the cost of more complicated rules or a lookahead of 2+ which limits the implementation tooling available.
> 
> Symbol:
> 
> '|' is visually confusing for SPARQL.
> 
>    Andy
>

Received on Thursday, 19 September 2024 17:01:21 UTC