Re: string escapes reverted on purpose?

Sorry about the sloppy wording ...  I should have been more careful.

I was mostly concerned about the keywords but the questions actually apply 
to both 
prefixes and keywords since as soon as you start combining things the same
prefix might be used in two different senses.

As far as I can see, n3.n3   tells you how to parse the file, and it says 
that from a parsing 
perspective the prefixes and keywords can appear in  all the positions I 
mentioned, but it does not tell you anything about the scoping. 

I suppose one can infer it by doing what cwm does, but I'd like to see the 
choices 
explicitly stated somewhere ideally with a rationale.  That way it becomes 
a conscious
design decision.

Stan.





Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
06/23/2005 11:44 AM

 
        To:     Stan Devitt/AWKCT/CAN/AGFA/CA/BAYER@AGFA
        cc:     EspeonEefi <eefi@MIT.EDU>, "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>, 
public-cwm-bugs@w3.org, Yosi Scharf <syosi@MIT.EDU>
        Subject:        Re: string escapes reverted on purpose?


On Thu, 2005-06-23 at 11:10 -0400, stan.devitt@agfa.com wrote:
> Concatenation is certainly convenient though we need to be careful 
> regarding  the scope of an alias.
> I suppose you are thinking more in the context of  ease of editing / 
> building n3 files and not having to
> worry about where the aliases occur.
> 
> Still I am just trying to  to be clear on the semantics even in one 
file. 
> For example:
> 
> 1) Do aliases inside formulas apply just to the formula ?  What are the 
> scoping rules
> for nested formulas.
> 
> 2) Do aliases apply just from where they are encountered forward or to 
th 
> entire file (or formula)?

Good questions.

Bonus points to anybody who phrases them in the form of test cases.

(what's an alias, by the way? Do you mean prefix declaration? or
@keywords declaration? or both?)

> Perhaps this is already spelled out somewhere and I have missed it? 

I don't believe so.

Well, technically, I suppose n3.n3 does answer these questions,
and TimBL occasionally says it's definitive, but I think he
still considers the scope of prefix and keywords declarations
something of an open issue.

http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/grammar/n3.n3
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/grammar/n3-report.html
 <- http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Notation3.html

Hmm... we've strayed a bit from the "string escapes" bug.
I suppose if the scope of prefix and keywords is open,
it deserves a place in the issues list,
i.e. http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/admin/openBugs.html

I suppose "2004-06-10T21:22:46Z raised: RFE: formal N3 grammar"
covers it, though it doesn't isolate the issue very well.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Friday, 24 June 2005 00:36:37 UTC