Re: A different symbol for {|

Hi Laura,

It was not my intention to make fun of you. I just wanted to highlight that 
the annotation syntax gives you a way to avoid having to write your long 
strings twice.

Regarding your dissatisfaction with the characters that we currently use for 
the annotation syntax (i.e., {| and |}), I understand that this is not to 
everyone's taste. However, there is also a level of subjectiveness here and we 
will hardly find suitable characters that would be the first choice of 
everyone.

Personally, for me this is just syntax and I don't care too much as long as we 
have something that satisfies the requirements described in Andy's email 
(including the requirement that annotations should be kept together with the 
triple that they annotate). If you have an alternative proposal along these 
lines, please let us know.

Best regards,
Olaf



On måndag 4 januari 2021 kl. 14:59:45 CET Laura Morales wrote:
> > But then you can use the annotation syntax {| ... |}  and write your long
> > URIs or long strings only once.
> 
> Are you making fun of me? The original question was to replace {||}. One
> suggestion was to use a triple followed by <<>>. I objected that this was
> not a good replacement because I would need to write long strings twice. So
> you suggest that I use {||} instead? Back to where we started.

Received on Monday, 4 January 2021 14:23:10 UTC