Re: Reified triple syntax

I'd second that - I've actually been using an arrow notation, and would
argue that using it and moving the reifier to the left makes for greater
legibility:

<< a => b c d >>.


*Kurt Cagle*
Editor in Chief
The Cagle Report
kurt.cagle@gmail.com
443-837-8725 <http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B14438378725>


On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 8:50 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
>
>