Reference Notation3

[nichtich]

Notation3 (N3) is a superset of Turtle 1.1 and it comes with its own syntax for graph terms:

{ :a :b :c } :d :e .

In contrast Turtle 1.2 introduces two forms

<< :a :b :c >> :d :e .

and

:a :b :c {| :d :e |} .

I'm sure each of the three forms have different semantics and I'm also sure this will confuse not only me, so at least some non-normative reference to Notation3 should be given.

[gkellogg]

These Turtle forms do not relate to graph literals, or any other kinds of graphs, at least in the current interpretation. That aside, I question if it's appropriate for Turtle (a REC) to reference N3 (a Note). It might be appropriate for N3 to reference Turtle and discuss the syntactic similarities of graph literals and annotations, particularly if/when annotations are added to N3.

[nichtich]

Well, hopefully at least this issue will be found when someone will search for RDF Turtle and Notation3 to find out whether and how { :a :b :c } :d :e . and << :a :b :c >> :d :e . relate to each other. Both reifyed triple and graph term look, swim and quack alike to the naked eye.