On 21/01/2021 16:44, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote: > > On 21/01/2021 17:17, Miel Vander Sande wrote: >> No real objection here. I can agree with the points made. >> That said, I'd still not use { }. > The main argument in favor of curly brackets, as I understand, is that > they are not used in Turtle, so they make annotations easier to > differentiate from other syntactic constructs. That is, in Turtle*... > > I agree with you that, in the bigger picture (i.e. SPARQL*, TriG*), this > creates an irregularity. I would also rather use square brackets for > this. May be [| ... |] ? > >> If any, just use :s :p1 :o1 | :source :URL1 |. > > That would make embedded annotations tricky to parse (automatically, not > to mention visually). > > :s :p1 :o2 | :a :b | :c :d |, :e | :f :g | |. > > :-/ Right - having same start and finish does not work. The second "|" can be either a start or a finish. Even if we say that nesting is not expected and need not have much design weight, designing it out makes the impact on the grammar wider. From the comments about {} being triples, then trying to make [..] work: [| ... |] or |[ ]| or @[ ] (note langtags have at least one alphabetic character so @[ is not a clash with an existing langtag) are possibilities. AndyReceived on Friday, 22 January 2021 08:50:05 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 22 January 2021 08:50:07 UTC