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

Re: rq23 grammar update

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 15:15:25 +0100
Message-ID: <431469FD.2010703@hp.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>



Dan Connolly wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 10:34 +0100, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> 
>>Dan Connolly wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>>>This grammar has no local lookahead and has been checked for LA requirements 
>>>>with JavaCC, it has been fed to yacker (it's grammar "afs1"
>>>>http://www.w3.org/2005/01/yacker/uploads/afs1/bnf?lang=perl
>>>>except from (3) above the character class difference isn't supported so it is a 
>>>>slightly weaker '<' ([^<>])* '>' .  Yacker produces bison, yacc and Perl-based 
>>>>parsers with no errors.
>>>
>>>
>>>Please let's share that info with the world. Let's publish those bison,
>>>yacc, and perl-based parsers as non-normative linked files.
>>
>>+1 to publishing all the material we have.
> 
> 
> I meant: please let's publish some of those other grammar formats as
> part of this WD. I gather your +1 is to a different idea.

OK - I suggest we create a directory in DAWG space and putting them all, frozen, 
there.  Better to move them out of yacker after conversion as yacker is a live 
service.

http://www.w3.org/2005/01/yacker/uploads/afs1?lang=perl&markup=html
is the closest - yacker needs to be changed to accept some of the EBF used.

(specifically character class difference operator for quoted IRI ref which is 
the only way of writing two negated sets that I could find within the confines 
of the exact XML 1.1. notation).

That's why I thought a wiki page to gather them might help people.

All parser generators all have different input formats from the EBNF used - 
Yacker does the conversion but if we publishes we ought to say which one we're 
publishing by freezing them.

Eric - is it automated to run the syntax tests on these parsers?  I don't have a 
test framework that can do that - do you?

> I suppose it's not 100% critical to include other grammar formats
> in the WD, but it seems odd to ask people to cut-and-paste the
> grammar rather than having a machine consume it directly as
> source code from the WD.
> 
> 
>>  + the JavaCC file.
>>
>>I've started a section:
>>"Grammars and Parsers for SPARQL"
>>on the
>>   http://esw.w3.org/topic/SparqlImplementations
>>page because there are other grammars in the works as well (e.g. Ivan's for rdflib).
> 
> 
> That's also useful.
> 
> Do you still have the bison, yacc, and perl-based parsers that you
> got from Yacker? If so, please mail them to me with a copy to
> www-archive and I'll add links from SparqlImplementations.





And I'll prioritse the final clearup of the gramamr this week (small things: 
checking choice of rule names, removing some repetition).

	Andy

> 
> 
>> > And turtle, if it's not much trouble.
>>And an additional +1 to Turtle.
>>
>>	Andy
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2005 14:15:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:24 GMT