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

Re: Review of N-triples in test cases

From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 17:45:35 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021111174105.03a80410@127.0.0.1>
To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

At 12:13 PM 11/11/02 +0000, Dave Beckett wrote:
>I've changed this to
>
>  [[
>  NOTE: N-Triples is an RDF syntax intended for RDF Core WG
>  testing purposes and checking RDF applications for conformance with the
>  specifications.  The recommended RDF exchange syntax is RDF/XML
>  as defined in [RDF-SYNTAX].
>  ]]

That works for me.

> >
> > Section 3.1:
> >
> > [[
> > language ::= ( character - ( '.' | ws ) )+
> > and containing any allowed xml:lang content as defined in
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#sec-lang-tag
> > ]]
> >
> > The syntax production here is very generalized compared with the RFC3066
> > syntax productions (and RFC1766 before it, as cited by the cited
> > document).  I suggest either:
> > (a) don't give any syntax production, just cite the REC-xml section, OR
>
>Funnily, Jeremy suggested removing that citation.

Jeremy's suggestion was closer to my (b):

> > (b) give a syntax that matches the RFC3066 production, which in ABNF is:
> > [[
> >     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).
> > ]]
> > -- http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3066.txt
> >
> > (I'm not sure offhand if the XML syntax notation can do the counted
> > sequence productions.)
>
>and Jeremy didn't suggest this.

Not quite, but close.  Jeremy's suggested syntax allows a few forms that 
are not permitted by RFC3066, but I think it's probably as close as one can 
get without count restrictions (or some very tedious syntax productions.

>Personally I'd something nearer the latter.  I'll wait for some more
>feedback before changing this.

I'm happy either way.  My main concern was that there were two very 
different forms of definition.

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Monday, 11 November 2002 14:48:01 EST

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