W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2005

Re: sparlx.rnc in CVS

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:08:07 -0500
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: DAWG Mailing List <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20050324170806.GB20820@monkeyfist.com>

On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 10:47:06AM -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:

> <DanC> I understand the excercise to be: come up with an XML Schema
> complex type for our abstract syntax
> <bijan> Yes DanC, that is the exercise
> The abstract syntax we have so far is in the definitions, not in the
> grammar.

I'm going by the SPARQL Abstract Syntax message Andy posted on
Monday. (Well, I'm doing that now, because I think that's what Andy's
been suggesting all along, and I just figured that out.)

> I didn't pay too much attention to the .rnc schema at first because
> it was generated by a tool from a bunch of examples. I was waiting
> for a schema that was designed, intentionally, to match the abstract
> syntax.
> That's the goal, right Kendall?

Yes. It's not gone very quickly or well, but that's the goal.

> Now we seem to have a couple of attempts... a sketch by Andy
> (in his message of  Mar 24, 2005 at 12:25:14PM +0000)
> and a response from Kendall in 1.3.
> I haven't manged to study sparqlx.rnc closely yet to see
> how close it is to the abstract syntax in the definitions,
> but I'd like to check that this is what we're aiming at.

The one I just checked in (v.1.5) is intended -- modulo some details
-- to schematize the SPARQL Abstract Syntax in


Received on Thursday, 24 March 2005 17:13:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:46 UTC