Re: Reified triple syntax

[this is more about process than syntax] 

Am 20. September 2024 09:06:18 MESZ schrieb Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>:
>
>On 19/09/2024 16:56, Franconi Enrico wrote:
>> On 20 Sep 2024, at 00:50, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> I probably lost some steps of the discussion, but I can not make sense of this:
>> 
>>     << :s :p :o ~ :r >> .
>
>It is a reified triple declaration.
>A request (from Souri) was for syntax for that reifier ids that was decoupled from immediately using the id in a predicateObjectList.
>
>  << :s :p :o ~ :r >> .
>
>is shorthand for
>
>  :r rdf:reifies <<( :s :p :o )>> .
>
>> nor of this:
>> 
>>     :s :p :o ~ :r .
>
>That is shorthand syntax for:
>
>:s :p :o .
>:r rdf:reifies <<( :s :p :o )>> .
>
>It's part of annotation syntax, in this case the declaration form without an annotation block "{| predicateObjectList |}"
>
>> —e.
>
>
>There has been long discussions about the current syntax in github issues.

there has been two days of lively exchange between you and gregg on github (which i followed but didn't have time to interact with then) and then you both decided to make it the new syntax witbout much further ado. and suddenly everybody was expected to accept and follow suite. there is something to be said for initiative and "leading" but you hardly made any attempt to reach broader consensus before pushing

> No one will be happy about everything in syntax discussions 

that may be true, but it doesn't exactly call for benevolent dictatorship either

>Syntax looks different when used small examples and to what it looks like in large/real-life examples.

this is one of your typical "arguments": seems to look so wise, but is so vacuous all the same. if you think you know something that can only be seen in large examples, then show it or at least describe it in some detail. don't expect everybody to just believe in your wisdom

thomas


>    Andy
>
>

Received on Friday, 20 September 2024 08:46:51 UTC