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

Re: parentheses vs. braces in TriQ

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 11:18:05 +0100
Message-ID: <406D3DDD.1020908@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>
Cc: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, www-archive@w3.org, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>

Chris Bizer wrote:

> 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.
> 
Much easier on italian keyboards which do not have braces.


> 
> 
> 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
> 
however, none of the arguments is strong

Jeremy
Received on Friday, 2 April 2004 05:19:51 GMT

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