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

Re: Possible Bug in SPARQL 1.1 Grammar

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 14:38:12 +0100
Message-ID: <4E8C5DC4.4080006@epimorphics.com>
To: Matthew Perry <matthew.perry@oracle.com>
CC: W3C SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>


On 04/10/11 16:16, Matthew Perry wrote:
> Thanks Andy.
>
> I also noticed that multiple BASE declarations are allowed in 1.1:
> Prologue ::= ( BaseDecl | PrefixDecl )*
>
> Is this intentional? Only one BASE declaration was allowed in 1.0:
> Prologue ::= BaseDecl? PrefixDecl*

Intentional - yes.  It wasn't a big thing though.

In SPARQL 1.0, base URIs could be relative even though there was one one 
base (relative the URI of the query file).

Update adds the possibility of prologues (BASE, PREFIX) before any 
operation, so BASE...BASE existed in Update.

So making it a general ( BaseDecl | PrefixDecl )* seemed like a 
simplification.

Is there some problem with that?

	Andy



>
> Cheers,
> Matt
>
> On 9/28/2011 5:30 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>> Looks like a bug to me.
>>
>> I've made a note in rq25 (editors draft) so it does not get lost:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#editors-notes
>>
>> and added it to
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/PostLastCall
>>
>> Thanks
>> Andy
>>
>> On 28/09/11 14:14, Matthew Perry wrote:
>>> Hi Andy,
>>>
>>> I was working on a SPARQL 1.1 parser and noticed that this filter did
>>> not parse:
>>>
>>> FILTER(3+3+4*5*2*3=126)
>>>
>>> I believe there is a problem with the AdditiveExpression production:
>>>
>>> AdditiveExpression ::= MultiplicativeExpression ( '+'
>>> MultiplicativeExpression | '-' MultiplicativeExpression | (
>>> NumericLiteralPositive | NumericLiteralNegative ) ( ( '*'
>>> UnaryExpression ) | ( '/' UnaryExpression ) )? )*
>>>
>>> I think
>>> ( ( '*' UnaryExpression ) | ( '/' UnaryExpression ) )*?*
>>> should be
>>> ( ( '*' UnaryExpression ) | ( '/' UnaryExpression ) )***
>>>
>>> Of course, I could have made a mistake somewhere else to cause the
>>> problem too.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Matt
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 5 October 2011 13:38:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:46 GMT