Re: Subject lists in SPARQL

I implemented this in an experimental TriG parser a few years ago.   I 
just made comma work anywhere, allowing the term before the comma to be 
repeated.

So if you want to say Alice, Bob, and Charlie all have friend Doug, you say:

   :Alice, :Bob, :Charlie :hasFriend :Doug.

Another example of subject-comma:

   :Alice, :Bob, :Charlie a foaf:Person.

I also allowed it in the predicate position:

   :sandro foaf:firstName,vcard:firstName "Sandro"

and in the Graph position:

   GRAPH :g1, :g2, :g3 { ... some triples }

That says that all three of those graphs contain those triples. When you 
want to say that, it's incredibly painful without this syntax.

Note that you can use them together:  <a>,<b> <c>,<d> <e>,<f>. is 8 triples.

I think this is a completely wonderful and elegant and useful syntax, 
and I shopped it around a little, but was unable to get folks in the RDF 
WG at the time (2013) interested.   I resigned myself to it not being in 
Turtle or TriG, and I'd just put it in the language I was going to 
propose right after they went to Rec.   Alas, that didn't happen.   (It 
would also have allowed { } expression to occur anywhere a blank node 
can, as syntactic sugar for a blank node graph label, and make the 
pointy brackets optional when they're not required for parsing.   And 
maybe some other things, like date literals.)

        -- Sandro

On 03/26/2015 07:59 AM, Bijan Parsia wrote:
> I don’t understand the example or the goal.
>
> On 24 Mar 2015, at 16:48, Fabiano Luz <fabianocomp@gmail.com 
> <mailto:fabianocomp@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>>> Hello Folks,
>> On the predicate lists we have omitted the subject, for example:
>>
>>      ?x  foaf:name  ?name ;
>>  foaf:mbox  ?mbox .
>
> This is clear.
>
>> I wonder if there is some kind of "subject lists" where we omitted the
>> predicate, for example:
>>
>>  foaf:Bob  foaf:phone  ?phone1; foaf:John  ?phone2 .
>
> Er.. not so much. Let me try reformatting:
>
> foaf:Bob foaf:phone ?phone1;
> foaf:John               ?phone2.
>
> Well, that syntax would be dreadful (as ambiguous) and not super 
> readable (contrary to the first one). I guess you could add a 
> pro-predicate.
>
> foaf:Bob foaf:phone ?phone1;
> foaf:John ^^^           ?phone2.
>
> That could be general purpose so the first example was sugar for:
>
> ?x  foaf:name  ?name ;
>         ^^^      foaf:mbox  ?mbox .
>
> I don’t see the value.
>
>> PS: I do not want to repeat the predicate.
>
> Why not? What’s the use case?
>
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
>