Re: A different symbol for {|

Hi Laura,

I'm glad you bring this up... I was thinking the same thing, but I
refrained from asking to not complicate the consensus ;)
However, note that the outcome of the current effort is not a
recommendation, so syntax can still be changed when going towards a
standard.

I dig the <<>> syntax, it is in line with the URI notation, but the {| |}
(they are next to eachother on my keyboard btw ;)) feels unintuitive
compared to something like <! >. The { } make me think of graphs and that
might have been the intention. So to prevent going into this uninformed (
https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/9 doesn't mention the notation's
origins), perhaps Pierre-Antoine or someone else could briefly explain the
rationale. I would definitely consider this an issue of low priority.

Laura, about your [1] proposal: I think this was discussed in other mail
threads. There's the thread by Pat Hayes and Ivan Herman talking about
reference by hash. Lionel Medini also proposed a :bob :age 42 @{ :source <
http://example.org/~bob/> }. syntax. Bu I believe the plan is to keep
annotations and triples together while staying within the triples  model.

best


Op zo 3 jan. 2021 om 09:02 schreef Laura Morales <lauretas@mail.com>:

> Hello,
> since the spec is still WIP and you are welcoming comments, I would like
> to suggest to change the symbol {|
> The main reason is that I find it very ugly and in stark contrast with the
> simplicity and user-friendliness of Turtle. The two symbols are also on the
> opposite sides of the keyboard and require quite some effort to type (at
> least for ISO keebs), but this is only a secondary reason; much less of an
> issue than the first one. I don't find << >> particularly nice too, but
> it's completely bearable and I don't really have much problems with it. But
> {| |} is just... too much, I think.
> I understand that the symbol must work both for Turtle and SPARQL, and the
> list of available characters combinations is limited because of this fact.
> So I'm not sure what a better replacement could be, if a new keyword, or a
> different 1-char symbol, or a better 2-char symbol such as {{ [[ (( -> =>
> etc. Can << >> be reused maybe? What are the use cases for using << >> as
> an object of another triple? Maybe << >> as a subject could stand for
> non-assertion triples, whereas << >> used as an object could stand for
> annotation (instead of {| |}). Even a reference system like this would be
> better imo:
>
>     :alice :knows :bob . [1]
>     ...other turtle ...
>     [1] ex:since 1980 .
>
>