Re: Annotation distributivity (Re: Summary: Annotation Syntax Proposals)

I agree with Pierre-Antoine here. Having several triples on both sides will
make things very hard to read or interpret.

Op vr 22 jan. 2021 om 08:52 schreef Pierre-Antoine Champin <
pierre-antoine.champin@ercim.eu>:

>
> 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 :-/
> >
>
>