W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > February 2002

Re: new cwm release (separate rdfn3.g parser)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 22 Feb 2002 14:51:57 -0600
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, connolly@w3.org, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-Id: <1014411117.998.134.camel@jammer>
On Fri, 2002-02-22 at 14:11, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> It seems to my inexpert eye that cwm has these functional components:
> 
>   1.  Parse RDF (REC-rdf-syntax-19990222), n3, ntriples
>   2.  Generate (pretty-print) RDF (REC-rdf-syntax-19990222), n3, ntriples
>   3.  Flatten (encode n3 formulas in an RDF graph; has been broken for ages)

[...]

> Personally, I'd like to see separate programs for 1+3 (reader),

I'm pretty happy with the yapps-based reader:

  http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/rdfn3_yapps.py
  http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/rdfn3-gram.html
  http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/rdfn3.g

Well... speaking of performance, I'm not happy with the yapps scanner;
it calls the regex engine N times per token, rather than just once.

And it only parses... it doesn't flatten. (I consider that
a feature, not a bug, btw.)

> 2
> (writer), 4 (reifier), 5 (thinker), and 6 (questioner).  (I imagine
> the programs piping N-Triples or maybe RDF/XML between them.)  That
> would make life easier for parallel development and for tracking the
> evolution of the different components. 
> 
> What do you think?

Yup; a big part of the motivation for developing rdfn3.g was
to specify how N3 relates to, say, KIF, without involving
alll the hairy cwm bits.

> 
>     -- sandro
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/04/pl/semweb.P
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 22 February 2002 15:52:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:53 GMT