W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: Proposed: SPARQL grammar is complete as-is

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 09:28:49 +0000
Message-ID: <4D22E851.9070306@epimorphics.com>
To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>


On 23/12/10 11:45, Alexandre Passant wrote:
>
> On 23 Dec 2010, at 11:38, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
>
>> On 12/23/2010 4:45 AM, Alexandre Passant wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 21 Dec 2010, at 13:57, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
>>>
>>>> As one step towards Last Call, can we agree that the grammar is complete as is? i.e., we do not intend to change any elements of the grammar beyond decisions that have already been made, whether it by syntax, keywords, functions, or anything else.
>>>
>>> Does it also includes grammar for Update ?
>>> AFAIR there is an outstanding issue about modify_template.
>>
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>> What is this outstanding issue?
>
> There's that e-mail from Andy [1], I'm not sure if Paul had time to look at it, or if Andy proposed something to adjust it in the grammar (in that case, we'll need to adjust the Update doe)
>
> Alex.
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010JulSep/0321.html

which says:
> BTW - Why is it required to always have at least one modify_template?
> DELETE {} or INSERT {} may be no-ops but when syntax is being generated
> by tools, it's easier if the zero-base case is legal

Currently, in the grammar, INSERT {} WHERE { ... } is legal in the grammar.


Also:

Holger Knublauch has discovered that the grammar did not allow SILENT 
with LOAD - I've added that in (to my working copy) now.

	Andy
Received on Tuesday, 4 January 2011 09:32:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:45 GMT