Re: Summary: Annotation Syntax Proposals

>
>
> 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.
>

Fair point indeed


>
>
> > << :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 |}.
>

That makes sense!


>
> > 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.
>

No real objection here. I can agree with the points made.
That said, I'd still not use { }. If any, just use :s :p1 :o1 | :source
:URL1 |.


>
>    pa
>
>
>