- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 17:17:24 +0100
- To: Richard Newman <r.newman@reading.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Richard Newman wrote: > > Hi, > I believe I've found some minor errata in the EBNF grammar. This is > looking at the edition marked "W3C Working Draft 19 April 2005" at > <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/>. > > * <AT>, as used in production 74, is not defined in this grammar (or, > at least, I can't find it if it is!). It wasn't - now fixed. The literal '@' is used in the language tag rule. > > * Production 73 seems to be missing its outer brackets: > > <VAR> ::= '?'|'$') (<NCNAME2>|<NCNAME1> Now fixed - as part of other working group decisions, variables are now the productions: [43] Var ::= VAR1 | VAR2 [72] VAR1 ::= '?' VARNAME [73] VAR2 ::= '$' VARNAME [87] VARNAME ::= NCCHAR1 ( NCCHAR1 | "_" | [0-9] | #x00B7 | [#x0300-#x036F] | [#x203F-#x2040] )* so the variable name is closer to being an XML NCNAME without "-" or "." > > * Table 11.1 defines the regex operator as: > > regex(STRING, PATTERN [, FLAGS]) > > and 11.2.3.6 uses it accordingly: > > regex(str(?mbox), "@work.example") > > but line 4 of production 54 mandates the second comma: > > 'regex' '(' Expression ',' String ',' String? ')' > > This part of the production should probably be > > 'regex' '(' Expression ',' String (',' String)? ')' This is now: 'REGEX' '(' Expression ',' Expression ( ',' Expression )? ')' (the keyword is case insensitive) and extends the patterns and flags to be expressions. This is inline with XML XPath/XQuery Functions and Operators fn:matches. > > * Likewise for production 57: > > ArgList ::= ( Expression ',' Expression* )? Yes - they had lost a pair of parentheses as well: Corrected to be: ArgList ::= '(' ( Expression ( ',' Expression )* )? ')' > > * I haven't thoroughly examined the expansion for production 27, so I'm > probably wrong, but it looks like it allows intermediate triples to > avoid having closing '.'s. (This point is more a note to self to check > my own generated parser for this possibility.) In the grammar of April working draft the "Triples" production was one or more triples with a common subject, not a sequence of any triples. This area has been rewritten to allow more cases of optional dots on basic blocks of triples. > > Thoughts welcome. > > Regards, > -Richard The changes mentioned are in the editors' draft is at: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/ and the grammar at: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#grammar The tests for the grammar might be helpful. They are to be found at: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/data/SyntaxFull/ Thanks for the comments Andy
Received on Saturday, 18 June 2005 16:17:37 UTC