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

Re: comment: QName production in SPARQL grammar; reconsider punctuationSyntax?

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:08:32 +0000
Message-ID: <43A14EB0.2070500@hp.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>


Dan Connolly wrote:
> JJC asks that we re-consider our position on punctuationSyntax;
> (a) he asks that foo:123 be allowed

The restriction to no leading digits in the local part does catch people out. 
  There is no necessity in SPARQL for the restriction.

A more conservative change is:

OLD::
[90]   	NCNAME 	  ::=   NCCHAR1 ((NCCHAR|'.')* NCCHAR)?

NEW::
[90]   	NCNAME 	  ::=   (NCCHAR1 | [0-9]) ((NCCHAR|'.')* NCCHAR

JJC's suggested change would make other thing legal as well (and make

  ns:2  legal (he included leading dots and  minuses as well as #x00B7 | 
[#x0300-#x036F] | [#x203F-#x2040] in the local part).


This still means that an IRI like:

<http://www.w3.org/2005/08/sparql-protocol-query/#wsdl.interface(SparqlQuery)>

can't be abbrevated except with the whole thing in the prefix.


I checked - this change does not fail any DAWG tests.

This works because lexing is greedy so "ns:2" it isn't seen as "ns:" and the 
number "2".  We depend on this in quite a few ways (e.g. the letters of 
keyword like SELECT inside a qname).

<insert type="request for negative syntax tests"/>please<insert>

> (b) he suggests editorial changes that disconnect
> the N3/turtle/SPARQL foo:bar notation from XML QNames

I'm not inclinded to change the test names.

I'm inclined to make the wording in the document use qname less (it's just 
2.1.1 and 2.1.2)

I'm (mildly) not inclined to change the grammar rule names and the text about 
the rules.

> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Dec/0018.html
> 
> It's not obvious to me that there's sufficient new information
> to reconsider the decision. I'm inclined to let him know that
> we have previously considered this issue and show him our
> decision records, but anyone who is persuaded by JJC's arguments
> that we should take another look will please say so.
> 
> These tests make it pretty clear to me that we considered all sorts
> of details about qname syntax...
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#syntax-qname-07-rq
> syntax-qname-07.rq
>         Approved
> syntax-qname-08.rq
>         Approved
> syntax-qname-09.rq
>         Approved
> syntax-qname-10.rq
>         Approved
> syntax-qname-11.rq
>         Approved
> syntax-qname-12.rq
>         Approved
> syntax-qname-13.rq
>         Approved
> syntax-qname-14.rq
>         Approved
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#syntax-qname-14-rq
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 15 December 2005 11:10:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:25 GMT