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

> On 22. Jan 2021, at 09:50, Miel Vander Sande <miel.vandersande@meemoo.be> wrote:
> 
> I agree with Pierre-Antoine here.

I don’t.

> Having several triples on both sides will make things very hard to read or interpret. 

Deviating from Turtle style grouping will confuse people, probably a lot.

> 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, sloppy me.

> >> 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?

Easy:

    :s :p1 :o1 .
    :s :p1 :o2 {| :source :URL1 |} ;
       :p2 :o3 {| :source :URL3 |} .

> 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.

This is syntax to avoid repeating subjects and predicates. It has nothing to do with named graphs. Taking the aversion against named graphs to this level doesn’t seem productive.

> 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.

Right, they should indeed.

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

Maybe, probably. But it would make life easier for users, and isn’t that what developers aim for?

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

… and thanks for renaming it.

Thomas

Received on Friday, 22 January 2021 11:55:18 UTC