Re: Reified triple syntax

The use of <? ?> would cause immense confusion in SPARQL Please don't go
there! :-)

How about the % symbol?

<< %foo%  a b c >>
 AFAIK, % is not used in either RDF or SPARQL.



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


On Sat, Sep 28, 2024 at 5:58 AM William Van Woensel <
william.vanwoensel@gmail.com> wrote:

> FWIW, my personal view - the unified pipe syntax indeed looks a bit
> confusing in large examples. Which part is the identifier, and which is the
> annotation?  IMO it is better to have a dedicated symbol for particular
> purposes, such as the ~ for reifier terms.
>
> When used individually, my issue with the pipe operator is its "baggage"
> -  it is known and used for a different purpose. But, I think Thomas makes
> a good point with [ ] being used for adding details, such as an editor's
> note; and that { } should be reserved for graphs.
>
> Instead of the "|" symbol, perhaps adding a "?" (i.e., [? xyz ?]) could be
> more suitable. To me, the symbol conveys something like "what more can be
> said about this statement? well...". E.g.,
>
> ex:Ioannes_68 a crm:E21_Person ,
>         ex:Gender_Eunuch ~ ex:Gender_Assignment_Eunuch [? a
> crm:E17_Type_Assignment ;
>                 crm:P14_carried_out_by ex:Paphlagonian_family ;
>                 rdfs:label "Castration gender assignment" ?] ;
>     rdfs:label "John the Orphanotrophos" .
>
> I don't think it would clash with the Turtle grammar, but, it could clash
> with the N3 variable syntax (well, not if we require a whitespace after the
> "?"). On a related note, the potential "baggage" of this symbol is its
> association with variables.
>
> > There has been long discussions about the current syntax in github
> issues. No one will be happy about everything in syntax discussions.
>
> Sorry to be adding to it. This option may have already come up; if so,
> feel free to disregard.
>
>
> W
>
> > On Sep 27, 2024, at 3:43 PM, Thomas Lörtsch <tl@rat.io> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Niklas,
> >
> > thank you for the links! I agree that these are indeed large examples,
> and thank you for the effort. Still, and I know that I do sound like a
> measly know-all when I say this, they are still very few ;-) But it’s
> unreasonable to expect us to get much further with example data (and if we
> did, it would still not be sure that we could evaluate them properly).
> Syntax is in a lot of ways a matter of taste and intuition. IMO it’s
> important to try to stick to some principles and seemingly objective
> criteria, however without getting hung up on those too much ;-)
> >
> >> On 23. Sep 2024, at 17:00, Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes, I tried out syntax variants on the UCR examples, plus a larger
> >> example based on the full Wikidata description about Elizabet Taylor
> >> (complete with nominations, awards, spouses and nationalities (e.g.
> >> twice a US citizen)). For illustration, I just added a new gist with
> >> those updated to the new syntax:
> >>
> >>   https://gist.github.com/niklasl/c0ba767efe4816a515ad04a4db48b3e6
> >
> > Very nice! I just converted them to my proposal from [7]:
> > Liz: https://gist.github.com/rat10/ddfd60afb42a8062fd7f1680ebedd022
> > UCR: https://gist.github.com/rat10/6c66e360c36b7d81bb3b9bc21fc16b96
> >
> > The good news is: this is relatively easy to do :)
> >
> > The bad news is: this reads not particularily well. In the current
> version (i.e. in yout gist linked above) annotation syntax seem visually
> better discernible from standard triples. The cost however, especially that
> it uses curly braces which should be reserved to graphs, is IMO too high.
> Seems to me like more thinking and tinkering is needed…
> >
> > However, the difference is more pronounced in the Elizabeth Taylor
> example which is also in the current syntax too involved to be really
> readable, especially because of those excrutiatingly long identifiers. Some
> line breaks would certainly help but I couldn’t figure out how to introduce
> them automatically in a sufficiently nice way (i.e. with proper
> indentation).
> >
> >> (One caveat is the last UCR example using a full list in a triple
> >> occurrence; also mentioned in [1].)
> >
> > Uff. I’ll comment on that in the issue itself.
> >
> >> (The now obsolete examples I linked to from the comments on either the
> >> original github issue [2] or the addressing PR [3] are at [4] and [5}.
> >> Of note in [2] is that pipe collided with SPARQL alternativePath in
> >> annotations; which this change fixed.)
> >
> > I just read through [3] again and noticed a comment by Andy saying that
> "If we go postfix, then '~' vs '|' is pure choice" [6]. If that is indeed
> correct (I guess it hasn’t been tested thoroughly as the discussion from
> that point on favored the tilde) then it’s good to know. Aesthetically I
> find the tilde quite okay. However, I also have that urge to unify the
> syntactic variations, as outlined in [7], and in that respect the pipe
> seems better.
> >
> > Best,
> > Thomas
> >
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Niklas
> >>
> >> [1]: <
> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-turtle/issues/71#issuecomment-2363703036>
> >> [2]: <https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/116>
> >> [3]: <https://github.com/w3c/rdf-turtle/pull/51>
> >> [4]: <https://gist.github.com/niklasl/c23925f831950506fde4eb73885319cd>
> >> [5]: <https://gist.github.com/niklasl/1845c6bc8b37402cc9698720c2e22f88>
> > [6] https://github.com/w3c/rdf-turtle/pull/51#issuecomment-2256850306
> > [7]
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2024Sep/0073.html
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 12:37 PM Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 20/09/2024 09:46, Thomas Lörtsch wrote:
> >>>> 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
> >>>
> >>> There have been examples done by Niklas on the visual impact of syntax
> >>> designs.
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
>
>
>