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

ACTION-914 and ACTION-918 completed

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 13:52:24 +0100
To: "RIF (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <047CD827-43F0-40B1-B426-02EE8E49E762@deri.org>
Please check [1,2,3].

best,
Axel

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
> Date: 19 September 2009 13:50:54 GMT+01:00
> To: Carlos Damásio <cd@di.fct.unl.pt>
> Cc: <public-rif-comments@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: EBNF grammar of presentation syntax
>
> Dear Carlos,
>
> Thanks for spotting this. We have updated the EBNF productions in  
> RIF FLD and BLD to only
> allow NCNames (instead of arbitrary unicode strings) for localnames,  
> Prefix names,
> Variable names and Profiles names, cf. [1,2,3]
>
> Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:public-rif-comments@w3.org 
> >
> (replying to this email should suffice). In your acknowledgment  
> please let us
> know whether or not you are satisfied with the working group's  
> response to your
> comment.
>
> with best regards,
> Axel
>
> 1. http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/FLD#EBNF_Grammar_for_the_Presentation_Syntax_of_RIF-FLD
> 2. http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD#EBNF_Grammar_for_the_Presentation_Syntax_of_RIF-BLD_.28Informative.29
> 3. http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/DTB#Shortcuts_for_Constants_in_RIF.27s_Presentation_Syntax
>
>
>
> On 9 Sep 2009, at 16:54, Carlos Damásio wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>>
>> In first place, my congratulations to this nice and necessary work.  
>> I have just started  playing around with Prolog parsers for RIF and  
>> realized that theEBNF grammar is ambiguous, as noticed before by Axel
>> (see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Aug/0003.html 
>> ).
>>
>> I found very problematic the Name and Var productions which use  
>> Unicode Strings which are not delimited. For instance the fragment,
>>
>> Document(
>> Dialect(  anasty ) dialect ))Base( <http://www.dot.com> )
>> )
>>
>> What is the appropriate parsing of this Document? Where does  
>> Dialect end?
>> Even for this
>>
>> Document(
>> Dialect(FOL)Base( <http://www.dot.com> )
>> )
>>
>> a possible parsing according to the grammar is to understand this  
>> as a single dialect declaration "FOL)Base( <http://www.dot.com> ".
>>
>> I even think that Vars are more problematic because they can appear  
>> in sequences like
>>
>> atom(?x?y ?z)
>>
>> How many vars are there? 1(a var named "x?y ?z), 2( a var named "x? 
>> y" and other named "z") or 3?
>>
>> The same applies to UNITERMs like this
>>
>> atom( ?x->y->z)
>>
>> A possible way out is to say that some special characters are not  
>> allowed in Names and use escaped chars for spaces, question marks,  
>> "->", etc. The exact set of non allowed sequences is to be carefully
>> defined because of possible interactions with other grammar  
>> productions.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Carlos
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> Dr. Axel Polleres
> Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of  
> Ireland, Galway
> email: axel.polleres@deri.org  url: http://www.polleres.net/
>
>
>

-- 
Dr. Axel Polleres
Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland,  
Galway
email: axel.polleres@deri.org  url: http://www.polleres.net/
Received on Saturday, 19 September 2009 12:53:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 19 September 2009 12:53:06 GMT