Re: A different symbol for {|

IMO, sticking to the triple structure is the only thing that makes sense
coming from RDF. I only brought this proposal up to illustrate that there
have been alternatives.

The only leanier thing I can think of is:
- graph annotation:  { :s :p "abc" @en } -> this is an N3 feature and not
part of RDF*
- SA mode: {$ :s :p "abc" @en } (could be the same as the above, up to the
implementers)
- PG mode -> {! :s :p "abc" @en }



Op di 5 jan. 2021 om 10:57 schreef Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>:

>
>
> 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 .
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>