W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > June 2017

Re: Proposed fixed version of N-Triples https://www.w3.org/TR/n-triples/ Section 7

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 13:59:45 +0100
Message-ID: <CAK-qy=7y8e_aTrJsZzT+mFxwk6ug45-NMC0FnKSTPZCEwNxjTw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, public-rdf-comments Comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
On 29 June 2017 at 13:48, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
wrote:

> One problem with providing these test cases is that it is not really
> possible
> to determine exactly what the current grammar allows.
>

Yup. I was typing on my phone earlier, and stopped short of typing
previously-unclear-but-now-illegal etc.


> For example, there are multiple readings of "terminal".  Is it any
> terminal,
> in which case white space might be allowed within blank node labels?  Is it
> any terminal mentioned in the productions for non-terminals, in which case
> blank space might be allowed before language tags?  Is it only named
> terminals
> mentioned in the productions for non-terminals?
>
> However, I could produce some interesting cases.
>

That sounds pretty useful e.g. for flushing out different behaviours
amongst current implementation, which might in turn motivate their
implementors to make another pass over all this.

Dan


>
> peter
>
> On 06/29/2017 05:41 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 29 Jun 2017 12:40 pm, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org <mailto:ivan@w3.org>>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >     > On 29 Jun 2017, at 13:01, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> >     <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >     >
> >     > I was hoping that my message would (instead) trigger a broader
> >     examination of
> >     > the grammars for N-Triples, N-Quads, and Turtle and result in
> >     > community-approved revised grammars for each of them.  Each of
> these
> >     grammars
> >     > has problems.  The problems with the N-Triples grammar are the
> easiest
> >     to fix.
> >
> >     One does not include the other… I mean, you (in plural, seeing the
> short
> >     discussion on swig) did identify an erratum which must therefore be
> >     recorded. If there is a wider discussion that leads to more
> proposals, we
> >     just have to record those as well…
> >
> >     (In my experience not many people read and/or active on
> >     public-rdf-comments, I do not think you will get a lot of discussion
> on
> >     this list…:-(
> >
> >
> > There are a few lurkers!
> >
> > It would be good to have some testcases annotated as being unchanged,
> > previously-ok-now-illegal, previously-illegal-now-ok, etc.
> >
> >
> >     Ivan
> >
> >
> >     >
> >     > peter
> >     >
> >     > On 06/29/2017 03:17 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> >     >> Peter,
> >     >>
> >     >> I have added this to the official Errata list:
> >     >>
> >     >> https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/RDF1.1_Errata
> >     <https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/RDF1.1_Errata>
> >     >>
> >     >> Thanks
> >     >>
> >     >> Ivan
> >
> >
> >     ----
> >     Ivan Herman, W3C
> >     Publishing@W3C Technical Lead
> >     Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> >     mobile: +31-641044153 <tel:%2B31-641044153>
> >     ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
> >     <http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704>
> >
>
Received on Thursday, 29 June 2017 13:00:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 June 2017 13:00:24 UTC