W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > August 2011

Re: Issues found in Turtle spec

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:29:25 +0100
Message-ID: <4E5C9155.8030906@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-comments@w3.org


On 30/08/11 07:47, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> On 29 Aug 2011, at 22:12, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
>>> While [#0000- ] is valid EBNF it's not exactly readable ;)
>>
>> Well, given the rather week spec for EBNF, it's hard to tell if it's valid. Perhaps you could expand on it's interpretation.
>
> [A-Z] is everything from “A” to “Z”. [ -Z] is everything from space to “Z”. [#0000- ] is everything from code point 0 to space (code point 32). (I guess.)
>
>> FWIW, I don't find ( ... ) very useful, but, e.g., '[ a<node>  ] .' can be useful. I'd suggest adding a production to support it.
>
> +0.5. I've often been annoyed by having to use one syntax for “top-level” blank nodes and another for “nested” blank nodes. OTOH, Turtle should change as little as possible and align with SPARQL.
>
> Best,
> Richard

SPARQL supports this already (it comes from N3):

PREFIX foaf: 	<http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/>
PREFIX rdf:     <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#>

SELECT ?name
WHERE
    {
      [ foaf:name ?name ]
    }

A grammar complexity arising is the need to ban the empty property list, so

  [].

isn't legal.  The grammar also has to deal with free-standing () but top 
level lists are not very useful and should be removed.

	Andy
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2011 07:29:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:59:29 UTC