Re: Keep mode explici [Re: Annotation syntax]

Hi Pierre-Antoine,

On måndag 7 september 2020 kl. 08:09:38 CEST Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
> [...]
> So if really there is a consensus that << >> should be interpretable in
> two different ways depending on the "mode", [...]

No, that's a misunderstanding on your side. The direction that the recent 
discussion has been taken is that the two modes are indeed distinguished 
explicitly based on the syntax. That is, the original syntax (<< >>) in 
Turtle* indicates SA mode, whereas the newly proposed extension of that syntax 
( {|  |} ) indicates PG mode.

Here's an example again:

<<:bob :worksFor :EvilCorp>> :believedBy :alice .
:bob :worksFor :ACME {| :since 2018 |} .

In this example, the first line is in SA mode; hence, the triple (:bob, 
:worksFor, :EvilCorp) is not asserted but the nested triple is. In contrast, 
the second line is in PG mode which means that both triples in this line are 
asserted, the nested one:

 ( (:bob, :worksFor, :ACME), :since, 2018 )

and also the one in the subject of the nested one:

 (:bob, :worksFor, :ACME) .


> then let me suggest the following:
> add to RDF* and SPARQL* a directive @mode (or maybe MODE for
> SPARQL*...), akin to @prefix or @base, to make the mode explicit. So one
> would either write:
>   @mode PG.
>   <<:bob :worksFor :ACME>> :since 2018.
> or
>   @mode SA.
>   :alice :believes <<:bob :worksFor :ACME>>.
> If @mode was absent, I would prefer the default value to be SA, but I
> understand that some implementations already assume PG mode, so maybe
> the default value could be left unspecified for backward compatibility.
>   pa
> [1]

Received on Monday, 7 September 2020 09:40:54 UTC