W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > August 2009

EBNF grammar question...

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 12:08:36 +0100
Message-ID: <4A815134.7090903@deri.org>
To: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Sandro Hawke wrote:
> 
> Gary was kind enough to draft a response to WL's Last Call comment.  I
> added a header/footer.  Please look it over; I guess we'll send it
> Monday if no one has any comment.
> 
>     http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Response_to_WL
> 
> (Chris, have you made any progress with the other LC comments?  We
> wanted to try to close the loop on each of them by Tuesday!)
> 
>      -- Sandro
> 

grammar question...

I just realized that our grammar has some maybe not so nice feature...
For 'Name's we allow arbitrary UNICODESTRINGs

Even if that doesn't seem to raise ambiguities per se, some things look 
awkward...

e.g.

1) in the Prefix production, it may look awkward, but doesn't 
necessarily create an ambiguity:

  Prefix( assd asdnewr asdswnke <http:example.org> )


nonetheless such prexif is not usable later on, since the CURIE 
production doesn't allow non-PN_PREFIXes [1] as prefixes


2) Moreover, it seems to me that this is a more severe problem for named 
arguments, e.g. according to the grammar, this one is valid, isn't it?

  _predicate( assd asdnewr asdswnke -> "Hello" )


Question/Suggestion: Can/shall we make the 'Name' production more 
restrictive?

Axel

	
1. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#rPN_PREFIX
-- 
Dr. Axel Polleres
Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland, 
Galway
email: axel.polleres@deri.org  url: http://www.polleres.net/
Received on Tuesday, 11 August 2009 11:09:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 August 2009 11:09:18 GMT