Re: Keep mode explici [Re: Annotation syntax]

Ok,

sorry for the noise, then. And good move: I like this (syntax-based
distinction) much better :)

On 07/09/2020 08:44, Olaf Hartig wrote:
> 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) .
>
> Best,
> Olaf
>
>
>> 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] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star/2019Sep/0052.html
>
>