W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Turtle tests blank ID patches, and EARL report for Serd

From: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:00:49 +1000
Message-ID: <CAGYFOCS76tT6Ow-9_L4iN6hNtYe-pfL_oF8wmPnhRM-dF3Uh0Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gavin Carothers <gavin@carothers.name>
Cc: David Robillard <d@drobilla.net>, "public-rdf-comments@w3.org" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
On 26 February 2013 09:20, Gavin Carothers <gavin@carothers.name> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 26 February 2013 05:30, Gavin Carothers <gavin@carothers.name> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 10:13 PM, David Robillard <d@drobilla.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Issue: There are tests-ttl tests that do not match the current grammar
>> >> [2], e.g. turtle-syntax-prefix-02.ttl contains "PreFIX :
>> >> <http://example/>", but the grammar only allows PREFIX.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The grammar no longer specifies all of the case rules in Turtle,
>> > specifically Note #1 of the Grammar section
>> >
>> > (https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/index.html#sec-grammar-grammar):
>> >
>> > Keywords in single quotes ('@base', '@prefix', 'a', 'true', 'false') are
>> > case-sensitive. Keywords in double quotes ("BASE", "PREFIX") are
>> > case-insensitive.
>>
>> David Wood mentioned that the group was still considering whether to
>> make @base and @prefix case-insensitive.
>
>
> Mmm... that is news to me. I do know that the whole BASE, PREFIX addition is
> a feature at risk.

I would prefer not to have BASE or PREFIX in Turtle, and if they were
not in Turtle I would also prefer not to have @base and @prefix as
case-insensitive.

My original query about case sensitivity of @base and @prefix has not
been responded to officially, [1]. Andy responded immediately to it
with an informal comment [2], and asked if I wanted a change in the
grammar, and I replied that I did want a change in the grammar [3].
Then after the Candidate Recommendation change I wanted to clarify
what the status of my query was [4] and David Wood responded with [5]
which seemed to state that it was still under review, which doesn't
mean it is going to change, but seems to mean that it is still an open
issue. Introducing the sparql operators as case insensitive and not
changing the equivalent turtle operators to match would be confusing
to users and developers, in my opinion.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2012Nov/0005.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2012Nov/0006.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2012Nov/0007.html
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Feb/0028.html
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Feb/0031.html

>>
>>
>> > This is a editoral change from the LC document
>> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-turtle-20120710/#sec-grammar-grammar see
>> > change
>> > set https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/rev/d3e8ccd67c9c  and the thread
>> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Dec/0074.html
>>
>> You referred to that as a LC document. Did you mean "Last Call"? That
>> document looked to be a Working Draft, per its title, and it appeared
>> as though there was no Last Call for Turtle [1] (hence the flood of
>> enquiries now!).
>
>
> There was! Really!
> http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2012/07/13/rdf-working-group-publishes-turtle-as-last-call-working-draft/
>
> Document maturity level: Working Draft.
>
> Documents don't claim in their left hand header to be Last Call :\ In the
> "Status of This Document" section you'll find:
>
> "This is a Last Call Working Draft and thus the Working Group has determined
> that this document has satisfied the relevant technical requirements and is
> sufficiently stable to advance through the Technical Recommendation process"

Sorry, my bad. I had thought incorrectly that the status was given in the title.

Peter
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2013 00:01:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:59:31 UTC