- From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2024 16:53:29 +0100
- To: public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <1970edfa-36d2-4e7c-8124-61a46b3f71b1@apache.org>
On 27/09/2024 21:02, Gregg Kellogg wrote: > Note that ‘|’ doesn’t currently conflict, but it could be a path of > expansion for N3 [1]. I mentioned this the other day, so I think it > would be wise to avoid this character. ‘|’ is used in SPARQL property paths. there can be several uses of path-alt one line. Annotation syntax from the CG avoided using oen character "{" "}" for the annotation grouping to leave the future open for graph literal/terms/... Andy > > Gregg Kellogg > Sent from my iPhone > > [1] https://w3c.github.io/N3/spec/#grammar-production-path > >> On Sep 27, 2024, at 12:43 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. >>>> >>>> >> >>
Received on Sunday, 29 September 2024 15:53:37 UTC