Re: Summary: Annotation Syntax Proposals

[ Quotation levels were broken in my Apple Mail mail client. I tried to fix that manually.]

> On 21. Jan 2021, at 17:17, Miel Vander Sande <miel.vandersande@meemoo.be> wrote:
> 
> 
>> 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 |}.

Not related, just a quick question by the side: would the following - line 1 having 2 objects - be legal?

 :s :p1 :o1, :o2 {| :source :URL1 |},
    :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 |

Your point about not using { } as it’s used for graphs everywhere else is very valid. If anything it might be appropriate for the embedded triple in SA mode.


I’d like to avoid the impression that I randomly throw in some half-baked ideas but here you go:

 :s :p :o <* :y :z *> .

Staying with angular brackets might make the relation to << embedded triples >> a little more obvious (without causing confusion, hopefully).

Received on Thursday, 21 January 2021 16:36:11 UTC