- From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 08:49:50 +0000
- To: public-rdf-star@w3.org
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.
Andy
Received on Friday, 22 January 2021 08:50:05 UTC