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

Re: machine consumable SPARQL grammar

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 21:51:00 -0600
To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Cc: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1132631460.26034.162.camel@dirk>

On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 09:44 -0400, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 01:20:38PM +0100, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Dan Connolly wrote:
> > >So our grammar is now LL(1).
> > >http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#grammar
> > >
> > >But to directly consume the current draft (1.511 ) by machine,
> > >I guess you have to copy and paste the table or something.
> > >I think we have yacc and n-triples versions of the grammar.
> > >Please add those to the draft, OK, EricP or Andy?
> > 
> > No problem.  It isn't just yacc anyway.
> > 
> > (N-triples?)
> 
> The N-triples-serializing code is probably a little fettid now.
> 
> > I'd also like to see that the generated parsers can in fact parse the test 
> > suite syntax tests as a sanity check.
> 
> I have lexer probs with the python one (don't have the esaping right,
> DanC, could you massage the .g file and tell me what escaping diffs
> are required?).

Er... "the .g file"? Whazzat? Pointer? Clues?

>  I periodically run the SyntaxTests through the perl
> and C versions. Can do this again. Is now the time?
> 
> > >
> > >i.e. check them into the rq23/ directory and add a link
> > >from the #grammar section.
> > >
> > >In Andy's repy to the comment, there's a pointer to yacker,
> > >and I can follow my nose from there to a list of grammars
> > >  http://www.w3.org/2005/01/yacker?action=list+grammars
> > >but it's not clear which is the relevant one.
> > 
> > This is true - Eric is there someway we can:
> > 
> > 1/ Delete unused grammars
> 
> In order to not get distracted by yaccer just now, I'll do this from
> the command line. Are there any other than rq23final that you want to
> save?
> 
> > 2/ Ensure all the generated parsers match the grammar.  At the moment, each 
> > needs to be explicitly remade, right?  Flagging when the gramamr is newer 
> > than one of the parsers and a "make all parsers" option woudl help.
> 
> This would require a bit of re-eng. Right now, the differen version
> overright each other (not a great design).
> 
> > The grammar is rq23final (no "-") although that is prior to the change made 
> > last week s/isURI/isIRI/g which changed the grammar in rq23 as well as all 
> > the text use of isURI.
> > 
> > >
> > >Is this relevant to life as we now know it?
> > >  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/grammar.yy
> > >  grammar.yy,v 1.5 2004/11/28 08:28:39
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > 	Andy
> > 
> 
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2005 03:51:40 GMT

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