Re: sparlx.rnc in CVS

On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 12:08 -0500, Kendall Clark wrote:
> 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.

It seems to be moving right along, in the last couple weeks.

Perhaps we could/should have started this exercise of validating
the abstract syntax with an XML concrete syntax a long time ago...
... I suppose in that sense it hasn't gone quickly... but since
the Boston meeting I can't imagine how it could have gone much
more quickly, especially since I wasn't exactly encouraging
it to happen at all until recently. ;-)

> > 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
> Kendall
Dan Connolly, W3C
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Thursday, 24 March 2005 17:34:35 UTC