Annotation distributivity (Re: Summary: Annotation Syntax Proposals)

On 21/01/2021 19:52, thomas lörtsch wrote:
> Am 21. Januar 2021 17:48:12 MEZ schrieb Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@ercim.eu>:
>> On 21/01/2021 17:35, thomas lörtsch wrote:
>>> 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 |}.

Looking back at it, I realize that I interpreted your example as if the 
first line ended with ";" instead of ",".

Otherwise, no, this would not be legal. But I assume you really meant 
";" there.

>> Yes, and it would produce the following triples:
>>
>> :s :p1 :o1.
>> :s :p1 :o2.
>> << :s :p1 :o2 >> :source :URL1.
>> :s :p2 :o3.
>> << :s :p2 :o3 >> :source :URL3.
> That feels wrong. It should also produce:
>
> << :s :p1 :o1 >> :source :URL1.

I can see why you would feel like this, but then how would you suggest 
we write something producing just my answer?

RDF* is about annotating triples individually (as opposed to named 
graphs), so I don't think the syntax should default to annotate several 
of them at once.

Also, if annotations "distribute" over comma separated objects, why 
wouldn't they also distribute over semicolon separated predicate-object? 
This also could be considered confusing.

Finally, I believe that implementing such distribution of annotation 
would be harder to implement for developers writing Turtle* parsers.

   pa
> Hm, sorry for polluting this thread with another problem :-/
>