Ambiguity of annotation block

[jitsedesmet]

Hi, while reading the description of annotation-syntax. I find there to be 2 different interpretations of the sentence:

If an annotation block is not preceded by a reifier, an RDF blank node is allocated to serve as the reifier of the triple term.

At least mine and my supervisor his interpretation differ.

Interpretation 1

I understand the sentence to mean: ... annotation block is not directly preceded ...
Under this interpretation, the following mapping holds

:a :b :c ~ :t {| :y :z |} {| :Y :Z|} .

maps to

:a :b :c .
:t rdf:reifies <<( :a :b :c )>> .
:t :y :z .
_:g0 :Y :Z .

Interpretation 2

The other interpretation takes preceding to mean: preceded, skipping annotation blocks.
Under this interpretation, the following mapping holds

:a :b :c ~ :t {| :y :z |} {| :Y :Z|} .

maps to

:a :b :c ~ :t {| :y :z ; :Y :Z |} .

and

:a :b :c .
:t rdf:reifies <<( :a :b :c )>> .
:t :y :z  ;
   :Y :Z .

[afs]

Hi @jitsedesmet - thanks for the report.

:a      :b      :c .
:t      rdf:reifies  <<( :a :b :c )>> .
:t      :y           :z .

_:b0    rdf:reifies  <<( :a :b :c )>> .
_:b0    :Y           :Z .

It is the style of the first - with two rdf:reifies, one for :t and one which is the implied blank node.

In the processing of reifiers and annotation blocks - curReifier is cleared after one block so it only applies to the immediately next annotation block.

We can clarify the text.

[jitsedesmet]

Aha perfect! I did indeed forget the _:b0 rdf:reifies <<( :a :b :c )>> . .
Thank you for your clear response!
I think the simple addition of directly in directly preceded might be sufficient.