Re: Minor Syntax issues

Thanks for the note - for now I have made some changes for publication.

For this week's publication the state is:

1/ BOUND(?x) - no change

2/ Left as AND for now.

3/ Just OPTIONAL, not []

(note that OPTIONAL can take a {} pattern or a plain triple pattern - 
restricting to just {} would be OK).

4/ No change to functions/casting/builtins although this does look like it can 
be simplified - it just requires more time than is available before publication.

5/ WITH done.

6/ Clause order unchanged

	Andy


Alberto Reggiori wrote:
> Andy,
> 
> for the record, here are our answers/input to your syntax issues
> 
> On Feb 11, 2005, at 10:02 PM, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> 
> 
>>This is about tuning the current syntax, post-WD2 publication, not 
>>redesigning the whole thing.
>>
>>1/ Bound
>>
>>This is special because it tests the variable, not the value.  It's 
>>the only
>>case where this happens.
>>
>>The suggestion (PatH) was to make this different.  In other 
>>programming languages, there is just a plain function like many other 
>>library functions.  It returns a value (a boolean) like any other 
>>function.
>>
>>Options:
>>1a/ BOUND(?x)   -- as the current grammar
> 
> 
> +1 for current form in the grammar
> 
> 
>>1b/ BOUND[?x]   --  different grouping
>>
>>Anything with a colon in it will look like a qname.
>>
>>BOUND ?x is dangerous as it does not express the tight binding nature 
>>of
>>this operator: "BOUND ?x && ?y" is strange.
>>
>>I prefer "BOUND(?x)" -- leave as is.
>>BOUND[] as a one-off is over doing it.
>>
>>2/ AND
>>
>>AND is a special keyword that starts constraints (SUCH THAT would be 
>>better
>>but its two words).  Currently in the grammar it is required because 
>>?x-?y is unclear : can be "?x binary minus ?y" or two expressions "?x" 
>>then "unary minus ?y"
> 
> 
> please keep AND for this round still
> 
> 
>>Proposal: use [] to mark constraints (see below).
>>
>>3/ OPTIONALS
>>
>>There are two syntactic forms "OPTIONAL" and "[]"
>>
>>Proposal: just the OPTIONAL form, freeing up [] for constraints.
> 
> 
> ok to drop [] and use only OPTIONAL keyword
> 
> 
>>4/ Functions , casting and specials.
>>    &ex:foo() , xsd:byte(23) , isBlank(?x)
> 
> 
> we are neutral about this one
> 
> 
>>5/ LOAD => WITH
>>
>>The word "LOAD" suggests, to some people, a permanent change to the 
>>database which is a wrong implication.  DaveB suggested changing the 
>>word to "WITH".  I have done this change (rq23 and the tests).
> 
> 
> ok for WITH change
> 
> 
>>6/ Clause order
>>
>>The current order is:
>>
>>BASE
>>PREFIX
>>SELECT
>>WITH
>>FROM
>>WHERE
>>LIMIT
>>
>>which is a mixed style.  It would make sense to have WITH and FROM 
>>before SELECT (declarations first) and have LIMIT before WHERE 
>>(modifier to SELECT).  It has confused some RDQL users that FROM comes 
>>after SELECT.
> 
> 
> ok for given order - but please add few lines explaining BASE keyword 
> in the prolog, still only mentioned into grammar/bnf in ver. 1.207
> 
> 
> Yours
> 
> Alberto
> 
> -
> Alberto Reggiori, @Semantics S.R.L.
> www.asemantics.com
>

Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2005 17:03:27 UTC