Re: sparlx.rnc in CVS

On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 14:57 +0000, Seaborne, Andy wrote: 
> 
> 
> Kendall Clark wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 12:25:14PM +0000, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>sparqlx.rnc defines something rather different - it does not seem to allow 
> >>the nesting of GRAPH and UNION for example.  Is there a reason for
> >>this?
> > 
> > 
> > My struggle to understand the grammar of sparql -- the only reason I
> > can think of.
> > 
> > 
> >>I 
> >>would assume it isn't a restriction due to the protocol
> > 
> > 
> > Absolutely not. I would have made that very clear if that were the
> > case.
> > 
> > 
> >>element query-pattern {
> >>      (element group-pattern
> >>         | element triple-pattern
> >>         | element optional-group { group-pattern }
> >>         | element dataset-constraint {
> >>             (uri | variable), group-pattern
> >>           }
> >>         | element union { group-pattern* }
> >>         | element constraint { ... }
> >>         | element group-pattern
> >>      )*
> >>    }
> > 
> > 
> > Ah, okay, I understand this better now. 
> > 
> > 
> >>[[Apologies for any incomprehensible RelaxNG - I haven't quite got round to 
> >>setting up some tools for it yet.]]
> > 
> > 
> > Mine isn't great either, but I think
> > 
> >      http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/sparqlx.rnc
> >      # $Id: sparqlx.rnc,v 1.3 2005/03/24 14:20:03 kclark Exp $
> > 
> > does what you're asking for (in a different way, but same thing, I
> > believe).
> 
> Not really.

Hmm... I'm not sure I'm following.

Just after the teleconference
on Tuesday, in #dawg, Bijan and I had this exchange...


<DanC> I understand the excercise to be: come up with an XML Schema
complex type for our abstract syntax
<bijan> Yes DanC, that is the exercise

The abstract syntax we have so far is in the definitions, not in the
grammar.

I didn't pay too much attention to the .rnc schema at first because
it was generated by a tool from a bunch of examples. I was waiting
for a schema that was designed, intentionally, to match the abstract
syntax.

That's the goal, right Kendall?

Now we seem to have a couple of attempts... a sketch by Andy
(in his message of  Mar 24, 2005 at 12:25:14PM +0000)
and a response from Kendall in 1.3.

I haven't manged to study sparqlx.rnc closely yet to see
how close it is to the abstract syntax in the definitions,
but I'd like to check that this is what we're aiming at.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Thursday, 24 March 2005 16:47:07 UTC