Re: A different symbol for {|

Technically,  you'd be making a fourth term, which would be outside of the
triple structure. It would also conflict with the named graph element in
for instance nquads.

I also see some issues with having multiple annotations. Would the <<>>
then support linebreaks?
Your proposal also looks a bit like using the blank node [ ] notation in
the graph position,  so I see some possible confusion there

Best,

Miel


On Thu, 7 Jan 2021, 09:46 Laura Morales, <lauretas@mail.com> wrote:

> OK fair enough. Is there a reason why this cannot be used btw?
>
>     :a :knows :b << :since 1900 >> .
>
>
>
>
> Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2021 at 9:37 AM
> From: "Miel Vander Sande" <miel.vandersande@meemoo.be>
> To: "Laura Morales" <lauretas@mail.com>
> Cc: public-rdf-star@w3.org
> Subject: Re: A different symbol for {|
>
> Knowing that :knows is universal, I find this is more confusing in the
> same way Andy pointed out that  :s :p "abc"@{ :a:b } . reads like modifying
> "abc". Plus, we are digressing from the triple model again and I don't
> think that will make things easier in the long run. RDF simply isn't PG and
> so is the syntax.
>
> With this thread in mind, the only minor change I see fit is going from {|
> |} to <| |> (or whatever other character to replace |)
>
>