Re: Reified triple syntax

Syntax is important since it is the interface of the language with users.
Choices should not be made favouring ease of parsing vs ease of understanding.
Having the reifier after the triple is the exact opposite of what most of the people felt about not having triple terms in subject position!
Make up your mind and decide whether reifiers should syntactically appear before or after the triple term, and be consistent between turtle and ntriples.
—e.

> On 20 Sep 2024, at 00:50, 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 Friday, 20 September 2024 07:36:36 UTC