Re: BNF expression of RDF Concepts

* Richard Light <> [2013-12-05 09:43+0000]
> I notice that the 1.1 CR [1] lacks a BNF representation of the concepts which characterize an RDF graph.  I suggest that providing such a formal representation would be helpful to systems developers, since it would introduce standard naming conventions, and structures, which could be followed in whichever programming language was being used for development.  This inter-system consistency would, in turn, help application software engineers using the systems they create.

This is not an official RDF WG response. I'm just trying to accelerate
us towards understanding your request.

Do you have something in mind like

  Dataset: DefaultGraph NamedGraph*
  DefaultGraph: Graph
  NamedGraph: GraphLabel Graph
  GraphLabel: NonLiteral
  Graph: Triple*
  Triple: S P O
  S: NonLiteral
  P: IRI
  O: Literal | NonLiteral
  NonLiteral: IRI | BNode
  Literal: LangTagged | NonLangTagged
  NonLangTagged: LexicalForm DatatypeIRI
  LangTagged: LexicalForm DatatypeIRI LangTag # |DatatypeIRI=xs:string
  DatatypeIRI: IRI
  IRI: per <>
  BNode: per <>
  LexicalForm: per <>
  LangTag: per <>

Is there a publication which you feel optimally presents the abstract
syntax for RDF? The above introduces extra labels for use in other
docs to reference (e.g. to impose further constraints on) NonLiteral
and NonLangTaged. Do you consider this desirable?

Given the timing, it may not be possible to include this at all, or to
include this in a normative section. Will you accept either of those

> Richard
> [1]
> -- 
> *Richard Light*


office: +1.617.599.3509
mobile: +

Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.

Received on Thursday, 5 December 2013 10:29:24 UTC