- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:08:07 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: DAWG Mailing List <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 10:47:06AM -0600, Dan Connolly wrote: > <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'm going by the SPARQL Abstract Syntax message Andy posted on Monday. (Well, I'm doing that now, because I think that's what Andy's been suggesting all along, and I just figured that out.) > 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? Yes. It's not gone very quickly or well, but that's the goal. > 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. The one I just checked in (v.1.5) is intended -- modulo some details -- to schematize the SPARQL Abstract Syntax in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005JanMar/0393 Kendall
Received on Thursday, 24 March 2005 17:13:06 UTC