Re: A different symbol for {|

On 04/01/2021 08:20, Miel Vander Sande wrote:
> 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 ( 
> <> 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 <> }

Sort of doable.

No technical barrier that I can see but it has it's own style implications.

In Turtle etc, @ introduces langtags (not a techncial barrier - langtags 
are at least one character) so still have syntax that suggests another 
thing. Or directives (Turtle, N3).

The trailing "}" is the same as graph end (TriG), block end (SPARQL) and 
formula end (N3), which as mentioned last time, does not help visual 
pairing of start-finish annotation to the same degree as a distinctive pair.

There seems to be no single perfect answer.

> }.| 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 < 
> <>>:
>     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 .

Received on Monday, 4 January 2021 14:20:38 UTC