- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 11:18:05 +0100
- 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 UTC