- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 14:39:04 +0000
- To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Cc: "RDF Data Access Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 14:26:04 -0000, "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com> wrote: > 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) > ... Thanks, that should fix it. Closes this issue for me. > Can't do much about the second - it's because of unary and binary '+' > and '-'. Yes, I said as much in the http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004OctDec/0170.html message > ------------------- > > 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/.... Yes, that's the work I am reporting on. I provided a bunch of suggestions only based on lex/yacc work, some changes are due to that implementation, some are more general such as non-terminals with no purpose I can see. All of those I called as suggestions and not necessarily bugs. This shift/reduce problem I had found I wanted confirmation it was a grammar ambiguity problem, which you've done, and not an implementation one. <snip/> Dave
Received on Monday, 8 November 2004 14:42:42 UTC