On 20.12.20 17:19, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > > On 20/12/2020 09:20, Lorenz Buehmann wrote: >> >> On 19.12.20 21:14, Laura Morales wrote: >>> Is this >>> >>> << :a :b :c >> :d ; :e . >>> >>> the equivalent of this? >>> >>> << :a :b :c >> :d . >>> << :a :b :c >> :e . >>> >>> Will Fuseki/Jena store them and treat them the same exact way? >> https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/rdf-star-cg-spec.html#turtle-star-grammar > > Yes - there is no changes to Turtle except to add <<>> as a new kind > of RDF term. For syntax, the new annotation syntax (in issue 9) is > likely to happen and is a way to write <<>> and assert the triple in > one form.
Yep - something that I think might be confusing for people start using RDF* might be the fact that << :a :b :c >> :d . is just an annotation but doesn't add the triple itself. I'm also wondering how triple stores will handle this if the triple itself doesn't exist - will it simply be dropped after parsing the whole document is done? Given that the triple could occur after the annotation in a stream, this needs some more effort for triple stores, right? Also, what happens if a SPARQL INSERT does add just the annotation? I guess nothing, or will the annotation be kept nevertheless - I don't think so? On the other hand, the annotation syntax will add both, the triple and the annotation in a step - this is nice. > > Everything else is left untouched. > > ";" and "," are just syntactic sugar in Turtle. > > How the triples are written makes no difference - a graph is a set of > triples. > > Syntax test suite: > > https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/tests/turtle/syntax/manifest.html > > Andy
