Re: A different symbol for {|

On 04/01/2021 22:42, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>
>> :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 - Just checking here - by "this dialect" do you mean @{... } ? If 
so, it would be good to have references to any data and parsers 
conforming to this.

I believe in discussions in this community it has been no more than an 
idea expressed.  I haven't seen a link to any data or parsers using that 
style.

All - Has anyone tried?

---
:s :p "abc"@{ :a:b } .
---
and why isn't that read as modifying "abc"?


https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/9
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star/2020Aug/0043.html


== Call for Implementation Experience ==

For any of the Turtle, TriG and SPARQL -

has anyone tried it when the object is a string literal?

It is not in conflict with the grammar in the spec (I have checked 
Turtle/LL(1)) but this may cause problems because there may be compliant 
parsers ("compliant" => pass all current legal Turtle files) that do 
langtag parsing differently. There are quite reasonably alternatives in 
regular turtle for implementation.

---
PREFIX : <http://example/>
:s :p "abc"@{ :a:b } .
---

And because there can be space between " and @:

---
PREFIX : <http://example/>
:s :p "abc" @en , "abc" @{:a :b} .
---

     Andy

> 
> 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 Tuesday, 5 January 2021 09:57:11 UTC