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

On 22/01/2021 12:55, thomas lörtsch wrote:
>> 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 |} .

Actually, since you propose to also distribute annotation on semicolon, 
in order to get the result I suggested, we need write:

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

>  >> 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?
I agree that we should in general favor ease of use over ease of 
development.

However, I disagree that this makes the users' life easier. It makes 
some use-cases easier, and others harder, as illustrated above.

More precisely, the current proposal makes it easier when to annotate 
each triple differently (you can still factorize the subjects with ";" 
and subject-predicates with ","), and forces you to repeat the 
annotation if you want the same annotation on several triples.

Your proposal, on the other hand, makes it shorter to put the same 
annotation on several triples, but more verbose to annotate each triples 
differently -- as illustrated above.

These are two different trade-offs. Both have their pros and cons, but I 
do prefer the first one, for the reasons I mentioned before, and 
repeated below:

>  >> 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.

Yes! :-)

> It has  > nothing to do with named graphs. Taking the aversion against named > 
graphs to this level doesn’t seem productive.

I have no aversion against named graphs, and I don't see what in this 
sentence made you think so.

On the contrary, I was suggesting that if you want the same annotations 
on a bunch of triples, maybe a better solution is to put them all in a 
named graph, and annotate that named graph. This has been one argument 
raised against RDF* by some people, because "a bunch" can also be "one", 
and so they claim you don't need RDF* at all.

If we consider (and I do) that both RDF* and named graphs have their 
role to play, then the "sweet spot" for RDF* is in annotating each 
triple differently, leaving the "same annotation for all" use-case to 
named graphs (without of course forbidding to do with RDF* either).

Hence my personal preference for a non-distributive annotation syntax.