Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add Quoted Triples and Annotation syntax from CG report #26

Closed
gkellogg opened this issue May 18, 2023 · 2 comments · Fixed by #27
Closed

Add Quoted Triples and Annotation syntax from CG report #26

gkellogg opened this issue May 18, 2023 · 2 comments · Fixed by #27
Labels
needs discussion Proposed for discussion in an upcoming meeting spec:substantive Issue or proposed change in the spec that changes its normative content

Comments

@gkellogg
Copy link
Member

This can wait for semantics decisions before adding Annotation syntax, but we should probably get quoted triples in to align with N-Triples/N-Quads.

@gkellogg gkellogg added needs discussion Proposed for discussion in an upcoming meeting spec:substantive Issue or proposed change in the spec that changes its normative content labels May 18, 2023
@domel
Copy link
Contributor

domel commented May 18, 2023

Agree, especially since sparql-query already has such PR.

@afs
Copy link
Contributor

afs commented May 19, 2023

We can use the SPARQL grammar as a single place to agree on rule naming and rule order then replicate that for consistency.

I agree that annotation syntax is "unclear" - both UCR and semantics will have input.

Annotation syntax is in w3c/sparql-query#78 without any opinion attached. It is a bit easier to do all once, now then remove later than it is to two design steps when the second step may uncover issues with the first.

Online validator: https://www.sparql.org/query-validator.html

Jena does have an internal Turtle parser based on a generated grammar that can be updated to aligned to the query PR, if that helps.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
needs discussion Proposed for discussion in an upcoming meeting spec:substantive Issue or proposed change in the spec that changes its normative content
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants