W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > April 2004

parentheses vs. braces in TriQ

From: Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 09:58:22 +0200
Message-ID: <009401c41888$486209e0$1f12fea9@named4gc1asnuj>
To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <www-archive@w3.org>, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>

Hi Patrick,

> >> Section 4: use of parentheses
> >> Perhaps we should use crather than parentheses
> >> to be more compatible with N3/Turtle, which use parentheses
> >> for collections.
> >
> > I am easy - parentheses as opposed to braces was Chris's choice - I'll
> > let him argue the case (if he wishes to).
> I'm thinking about what will create the least path of resistance
> if folks start adopting this -- and compatability with N3/Turtle
> seemed to me to be a big win.

Hmm, yes, I see arguments for both options:

pro parentheses:

- we started with them and already used them in the SWIG paper

- a named graph is not a N3 formula, which is underlined by using

- TriG is based more on N-Triples than N3.

- We didn't decide on a list syntax for TriG yet, or whether we want to
include lists at all.

- using braces would also imply braces in TriQL which would move it further
away from RDQL

- parentheses look "nicer" and are easier to reach on German and English

I think that all these arguments are not very strong. So if you have the
strong feeling that we should change to braces it is OK with me.

Received on Friday, 2 April 2004 03:57:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:42:40 UTC