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
parentheses

- 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
keyboards.



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.



Chris
Received on Friday, 2 April 2004 03:57:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:42 GMT