W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2004

RE: SPARQL grammar 2004-10-12 lex/yacc conflicts feedback (was Re: SPARQL 2004-10-12 syntax and grammar issues)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 10:29:31 -0600
To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Cc: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1099931371.4261.80.camel@dirk>
On Mon, 2004-11-08 at 14:26 +0000, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> The important thing for the SPARQL grammar is to communicate the
> language - it is not there to be exactly as an implementation would want
> for yacc.  The implementer is going tohave to do some work to turn the
> grammar in the document into yacc/javacc/antlr/hand coded parser/....

Grammars are useful for communicating with people that understand
them; i.e. trained computer scientists/programmers. It seems to
me that, ideally, the SPARQL grammar would be suitable for
use in parser generator tools directly, without human intervention.
It's not worth a lot of work to meet this ideal, but it is worth
a little, it seems wrong to dismiss "this will make it easier
to work with yacc" comments entirely just because we cannot
reach the ideal completely.

I can't tell what the actual request was in this case. Andy's
mailer isn't providing References/In-Reply-To headers, which
makes life hard. Nor is the relevant part of the message

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Monday, 8 November 2004 16:31:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:45 UTC