W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cwm-talk@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: SPARQL grammar... in BNF? N3?

From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 16:21:26 -0500
Message-Id: <3D2FD9AE-687F-4A8D-85BE-3685C870D8D4@w3.org>
Cc: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, Yosi Scharf <syosi@MIT.EDU>, public-cwm-talk@w3.org, Robert Crowell <crowell@MIT.EDU>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>


On Feb 8, 2006, at 13:26, Dan Connolly wrote:

> On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 13:12 -0500, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
>> On Feb 8, 2006, at 10:40, Dan Connolly wrote:
>>
>>> Yosi, Tim, Eric,
>>>
>>> The SPARQL parser in cwm... it seems to be built from EricP's
>>> BNF...
>>>
>>>
>>> |    if web:
>>> |        File = urllib.urlopen('http://www.w3.org/2005/01/yacker/
>>> uploads/sparqlTest/bnf')
>>>  -- http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/sparql/sparql-grammar.py
>>>
>>> In the DAWG, the editors added a .jj version of the grammar
>>> and are considering what other formats to publish.
>>>   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/parsers/sparql.jj
>>>   <- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/parsers/
>>>   <- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#sparqlGrammar
>>>
>>> Is BNF the one we want/need?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, please.  This has been a long-standing informal request.
>
> I'm surprised.
>
> To be clear: you do _not_ want n3/turtle?

On the contrary, yes, I would like it in RDF, using the same
context-free grammar ontology please, but any syntax out of RDF/XML or
any subset of N3.
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2006 21:23:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:02 GMT