W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-star@w3.org > January 2021

Re: Summary: Annotation Syntax Proposals

From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@ercim.eu>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 16:14:41 +0100
To: Miel Vander Sande <miel.vandersande@meemoo.be>
Cc: public-rdf-star@w3.org
Message-ID: <212d8882-a566-75a9-163a-8f9cfff381aa@ercim.eu>
On 20/01/2021 09:34, Miel Vander Sande wrote:

> Turtle is superset of N-Triples, Trig & N3 are supersets of Turtle and 
> N-Quads is a superset of N-Triples - shouldn't we guarentee that 
> future RDF* extensions of these syntaxes remain feasible (eg. getting 
> into shorthand hell) and without diverging too much from these 
> superset relations. 

I agree that we should.

I believe that the annotation syntax can safely be propagated to Trig 
and N3. IIRC Trig does not use a 4th component to encode graph name (but 
uses <name> { (triples...) } instead ) so the annotation syntax should 
not conflict here.

As Andy pointed out, neither N-Triples* nor N-Quads* are expected to 
have the triple syntax, so again, its position after the object will not 
cause problem in N-Quads.

> << :subject :predicate :object >>  :source :URL . -> 3 parts
> {| :subject :predicate :object |}  :source :URL  . -> 3 parts

I assume that what you are suggesting here is the {| ... |} are like << 
... >> + assertion.

The main drawback I see to this is that we can no longer factorize the 
terms of the asserted triples, as in

:s :p1 :o1 {| :source :URL1 |},
        :o2 {| :source :URL2 |};
    :p2 :o3 {| :source URL3 |}.

> Something that has four parts reads like a quad to me. But this is 
> just personal preference.

I sympathize with that, but I personally find this trade-off to have 
more pros than cons.


Received on Thursday, 21 January 2021 15:14:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 21 January 2021 15:14:46 UTC