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 :-/ >Received on Friday, 22 January 2021 07:52:10 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 22 January 2021 07:52:10 UTC