W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > November 2002

Re: NTriple review

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 14:15:21 +0100
To: "Dave Beckett <dave.beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFE13098FE.F2FB40D0-ONC1256C6E.0048660E-C1256C6E.0048DD39@agfa.be>


just to make sure, are we reviewing
http://www.w3.org/2001/08/rdf-test/
?

I'm also very glad that
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/ntriples/test.nt
is updated and we have it working well

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/


                                                                                                                        
                    Dave Beckett                                                                                        
                    <dave.beckett@brist       To:     Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>                              
                    ol.ac.uk>                 cc:     w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org                                             
                    Sent by:                  Subject:     Re: NTriple review                                           
                    w3c-rdfcore-wg-requ                                                                                 
                    est@w3.org                                                                                          
                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                        
                    2002-11-11 01:31 PM                                                                                 
                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                        





>>>Jeremy Carroll said:
>
> >>language ::= [a-z0-9][a-z0-9-]+
> >>
> >>(delete ref to REC-xml#sec-lang-tag)
> >
> >
> > Why?  I guess this is incomplete since it is refering obliquely to
> > multiple changing RFCs.  Is checking this unimportant?  Is it defined
> > elsewhere that is better pointed at?
>
> This is editorial at this point, sounds as though we should stick with
> what you've got.
>
> >
> > If I used the above defn, it would be good to explain where it came
> > from.
>
> If you ant that then something like grahams text

ant=want ? :)

> [[
>     The language tag is composed of one or more parts: A primary language
>     subtag and a (possibly empty) series of subsequent subtags.
>
>     The syntax of this tag in ABNF [RFC 2234] is:
>
>      Language-Tag = Primary-subtag *( "-" Subtag )
>
>      Primary-subtag = 1*8ALPHA
>
>      Subtag = 1*8(ALPHA / DIGIT)
>
>     The productions ALPHA and DIGIT are imported from RFC 2234; they
>     denote respectively the characters A to Z in upper or lower case and
>     the digits from 0 to 9.  The character "-" is HYPHEN-MINUS (ABNF:
>     %x2D).
> ]]
>
> is the relevant stuff from RFC 3066, XML got burnt because this was a
> change from RFC 1766 which XML initially copied.

Yes, that's what I was thinking of.


If you are happy with this, I'll make a change, trying try to put
this in terms of this syntax; see below

> In terms of N-triple syntax, a minimal change to your text would be
>
> language ::= ( character - ('.'|'^' | ws )) +
>
> to avoid the ambiguity on datatyping, keeping the comment.

Hmm, the EBNF we are using from
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#sec-notation can't express the length
restrictions of RFC3066 on the primary-subtag and subtag.

so at best we can have:

  language ::= [A-Za-z0-9]+ ('-' [A-Za-z0-9]+ )?

or if we go for lowercase only

  language ::= [a-z0-9]+ ('-' [a-z0-9]+ )?

I'm prefering the latter I think; with pointers to the RFC3066
section above.  The current N-Triples language definition is too far
away from the RFC3066 etc. version.

Dave
Received on Monday, 11 November 2002 08:15:57 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:04 EDT