Re: A different symbol for {|

On 2021-01-05 12:20 am, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
>
> 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 (https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/9 
>> <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/> }

I would prefer this @{ ... } over {| ... |} and believe this topic is 
quite important to get right, as there may be a large number of files 
that actually fit into this dialect.

Holger


>
> 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 <lauretas@mail.com 
>> <mailto: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 .
>>
>

Received on Monday, 4 January 2021 22:43:05 UTC