Re: A different symbol for {|

+1

> On 5. Jan 2021, at 13:10, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote:
> 
> Or:
> 
>     bob: age 42 *{ :source <http://example.org/~bob/> }
> 
> After all it's called RDF Star...
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> 
>> On 5 Jan 2021, at 11:47, Ghislain ATEMEZING <ghislain.atemezing@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> There can be also alternatives such as the following:
>> 
>> bob :age 42 @( :source <http://example.org/~bob/> )
>> 
>> bob :age 42 ^^{:source <http://example.org/~bob/> }
>> 
>> bob :age 42 ^^(:source <http://example.org/~bob/> )
>> 
>> Yes, a combination of requirements and little subjectivity will play to have a good candidate.
>> 
>> #my2cents 
>> Ghislain 
>> 
>> Sent from a mobile device, please excuse any brevity or typing errors
>> 
>> 
>>> Le 5 janv. 2021 à 11:41, Miel Vander Sande <miel.vandersande@meemoo.be> a écrit :
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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 .
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> > 
>>> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 5 January 2021 14:04:02 UTC