[Question] RDF-star and Nesting Annotations

[AdamSobieski]

[Question] RDF-star and Nesting Annotations

[afs]

Are these syntactically correct?

The last one isn't. List syntax is not legal in quoted triples.

https://www.w3.org/2021/12/rdf-star.html#turtle-star-grammar

The second one includes: (DATA for the list intent)

<< ex:myPredicate calc:holdsFor ex:DATA >>
        calc:probability  "0.96"^^xsd:double , "0.95"^^xsd:double .

i.e. two probabilities which is may be not what was intended. The fact it also includes

<< << ex:myPredicate calc:holdsFor ex:DATA >> calc:probability "0.95"^^xsd:double >>
        o:accordingTo  ex:Alice .

etc does not modify the underlying data to keep the two probabilities apart.

To have the two as separate sets of triples about the base data, there needs to be an indirection to keep them apart. This can't be written with annotation syntax - annotation syntax is a syntactic shortcut for certain cases, not a complete solution.

See https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star/2020Jun/0006.html for previous discussions.

Sketch:

<< ex:myPredicate calc:holdsFor ex:DATA >> 
    o:observation [ calc:probability "0.95"^^xsd:double ; o:accordingTo ex:Alice ] ;
    o:observation [ calc:probability "0.96"^^xsd:double ; o:accordingTo ex:Bob ] .

[AdamSobieski]

Thank you @afs, I updated that discussion thread with this.