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

Re: Where is the most actual n3 spec?

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:01:34 -0600
To: marcos rebelo <oleber@gmail.com>
Cc: timbl@w3.org, sandro@w3.org, public-cwm-talk@w3.org
Message-Id: <1140541294.26363.526.camel@dirk.w3.org>

On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 09:15 +0000, marcos rebelo wrote:
> After +- implemented Sparql I'm now moving to n3, but I'm havig
> problems finding references.
> 
> I have found 2 references:
> http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Notation3.html
> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/
> 
> but this documents are old.
>
> The latest is from 2004, this means that is +- stable or in diferent
> locations (where)?

actually*, Notation3.html was edited Feb 1 15:52:25 2006 UTC.
I see the CVS keywords got broken or something.

The swap/doc stuff is also fairly current, though it lags here
and there. I hope to integrate it more closely with the test
suite so that it becomes somewhat self-maintaining.

Perhaps the best specification of N3 is the cwm test suite.

In the latest release announcement
 Cwm Release 1.1.0rc1
 11 Aug 2005
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cwm-announce/2005JulSep/0000.html

You'll find pointers to not only the release tarball...
  http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/cwm-1.1.0rc1.tar.gz
and the project homepage, with details about how to grab
the latest source from CVS...
  http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/cwm
but also a log of log of the building of this release,
which includes an enumeration of lots of test cases that
were known to work as of that release:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2005Aug/att-0004/1.1.0rc1.log

The /DesignIssues/Notation3 page points to a number of formal grammars
for the language; the main one is the so-called n3.n3 i.e.
  http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/grammar/n3.n3
with corresponding HTML version:
  http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/grammar/n3-report.html

We have plans in progress to
 (a) check n3.n3 against the test suite
 (b) replace the hand-coded n3 parser in cwm with something
  mechanically derived from n3.n3

An RFE was filed 10 Jun 2004
  RFE: formal N3 grammar

http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/1086902566.21030.1479.camel@dirk;list=public-cwm-bugs

The grammar stuff isn't the top thing on our weekly meeting
agenda, but it's not totally starved for attention either..
  http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/plans#weekly

We talked about it briefly last week.
http://www.policyawareweb.org/2005/pf-dev/02-15-paw-minutes.html#item06

In particular, I brought up a blog item I wrote...

 bnf2turtle -- write a turtle version of an EBNF grammar
 http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/85

and timbl and I talked about g:seq and g:alt vs cfg:mustBeOneSequence
and the like.


> Thanks for the help

Likewise, thanks for your interest in SPARQL and N3.


> Marcos Rebelo


* Mucho gusto encontrarte. I speak a little spanish... just
enough to know that when you write "Where is the most actual n3 spec?"
I should read it as "Where is the most recent n3 spec?". ;-)

"acutal" is a false-cognate. If you translate it from Spanish
to English and back, you get "de verdad".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_cognate
http://www.spanish.bz/false-cognates.htm

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2006 17:02:19 GMT

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