W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2009

RE: minutes of today...

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:00:08 +0000
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B6CF1054FDC8B845BF93A6645D19BEA3693E18876F@GVW1118EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>
Simon Schenk: we proposed to have a separate grammar document with an overlapping part but didn't have much response. ←
Simon Schenk: Andy's response wasn't pro or con, so would like other opinions. ←

I'm pro having one grammar.  Having it in one doc seems like a good thing.

In query 1.0, we have a single full grammar at the end and fragments in relevant places but the fragments weren't done until the grammar was absolutely final to avoid errors creeping in.

I've checked in sparql-grammar-all.html [1] from [2] to move it into W3C space along side the annotated text one (aside - can we make every thing readable from the web please?)

Eric - this HTML is produced with the tools as before and is the same HTML table format that went in query 1.0.  I can put in yacker as well but under what name should it go? Can we list all grammars in Yacker?  (Might be worth removing old ones from DAWG.)


[1] http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/sparql-grammar-all.html

[2] http://jena.hpl.hp.com/~afs/sparql-1.1.html

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-dawg-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Axel Polleres
> Sent: 22 September 2009 17:02
> To: SPARQL Working Group
> Subject: minutes of today...
> ... available at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-09-22

> best,
> Axel
> --
> Dr. Axel Polleres
> Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland,
> Galway
> email: axel.polleres@deri.org  url: http://www.polleres.net/


Received on Friday, 25 September 2009 15:05:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:57 UTC