Re: Proposal for ISSUE-32, curly braces in joinCondition

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>wrote:

>
> On 10 May 2011, at 21:32, David McNeil wrote:
> > If you're violently opposed to lists, then how about the last option I
> mentioned:
> >
> >  [] rr:parentTriplesMap <#TriplesMap1>;
> >     rr:join "col1,col1", "col2,col2";
> >
> > This keeps the columns that are being checked *very* close to each other
> ;-)
> >
> > Indeed. I didn't notice the first time I read this that you put the two
> col1's together in this notation. So the first value always refers to the
> child table? Seems a bit too obscure for my taste.
>
> Fair enough -- it's not very explicit.
>
> Let me do one more try:
>
>  [] rr:parentTriplesMap <#TriplesMap1>;
>    rr:joinChildParent "col1=>col1", "col2=>col2";
>
> Or maybe
>
>    rr:joinFromTo "col1=>col1", "col2=>col2";
>
> Any better?
>

Richard- I am not sure. the "=>" operator looks a bit odd at first sight,
but maybe I could get used to it...

-David