- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@miscoranda.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 10:56:34 +0000
- To: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
On 11/1/07, Sean B. Palmer <sean@miscoranda.com> wrote: > As far as I can tell, the N-Triples specification does provide a > means of interpretation. That was a typo: I meant of course that it *doesn't* provide a means of interpretation. I've checked the specification of the EBNF grammar that is used: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-notation And it doesn't way whether productions are greedy or not, but clearly any interpretation would depend on matters such as that, and the fact that only valid RDF URI references are allowed in the circumstance. So my test case was as follows: <p:> <> <q:> <> <r:> <> "s" . And there are at least four ways of interpreting this: [<p:> <> <q:> <> <r:>] [<>] ["s"] . - Greedy, invalid RDF URI references [<p:> <> <q:> <>] [<r:> <>] ["s"] . - Greedy and valid RDF URI references [<p:>] [<> <q:> <> <r:> <>] ["s"] . - Non-greedy, invalid RDF URI references [<p:> <>] [<q:> <> <r:> <>] ["s"] . - Non-greedy, valid RDF URI references The stakes here are that depending on what the interpretation is, it mightn't be possible to express various RDF Graphs using N-Triples, which, as far as I know, is supposed to be able to represent all possible RDF Graphs. For example, say we go with the following interpretation: [<p:> <>] [<q:> <> <r:> <>] ["s"] . Then how do you express the following? [<p:> <> <q:> <>] [<r:> <>] ["s"] . Whatever the resolution, this will undoubtedly make compliant N-Triples parsing a lot harder than it prima facie appears if parsing depends on checking whether potential resulting RDF URI references are valid. -- Sean B. Palmer, http://inamidst.com/sbp/
Received on Thursday, 1 November 2007 10:56:45 UTC