- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 14:26:04 -0000
- To: "Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: "RDF Data Access Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Ah! A somewhat different timescale. Oct 12th this year.
The first one is resolved by having {braces} as the grouping symbols.
It is in rq23/ as noted at:
Revision 1.126 2004/11/04 15:20:29 aseaborne
...
+ triple pattern grouping is now {braces} (except for [] optionals)
...
Can't do much about the second - it's because of unary and binary '+'
and '-'.
-------------------
The important thing for the SPARQL grammar is to communicate the
language - it is not there to be exactly as an implementation would want
for yacc. The implementer is going tohave to do some work to turn the
grammar in the document into yacc/javacc/antlr/hand coded parser/....
Andy
-------- Original Message --------
> From: Dave Beckett <mailto:dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
> Date: 8 November 2004 14:13
>
> On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 14:08:03 -0000, "Seaborne, Andy"
> <andy.seaborne@hp.com> wrote:
>
> > > ISSUE: grammar lex/yacc shift/reduce conflicts
> > > I raised this in:
> > >
> >
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004Jul/0016.html
> > > based on an IRC chat. No reply so far. The first shift/reduce
> > > conflict I think is serious.
> >
> > This link points doesn't point to a message by Dave Beckett. Nor is
> > it about lex/yacc shift/reduce conflicts.
>
> There it is
>
>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004OctDec/0170.html
>
>
> Dave
Received on Monday, 8 November 2004 14:27:30 UTC