- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 08:45:45 -0600
- To: andy.seaborne@hp.com
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 11:08 +0000, Seaborne, Andy wrote: > > Dan Connolly wrote: > > JJC asks that we re-consider our position on punctuationSyntax; > > (a) he asks that foo:123 be allowed > > The restriction to no leading digits in the local part does catch people out. I don't doubt it. The question is: was the WG aware of that when we closed punctuationSyntax? Or is this new information? For myself, I was well aware of the limitations of XML name syntax that SPARQL was inheriting; I assume others were as well, but if not -- i.e. if you see new information -- please say so. > There is no necessity in SPARQL for the restriction. > > A more conservative change is: > > OLD:: > [90] NCNAME ::= NCCHAR1 ((NCCHAR|'.')* NCCHAR)? > > NEW:: > [90] NCNAME ::= (NCCHAR1 | [0-9]) ((NCCHAR|'.')* NCCHAR > > JJC's suggested change would make other thing legal as well (and make > > ns:2 legal (he included leading dots and minuses as well as #x00B7 | > [#x0300-#x036F] | [#x203F-#x2040] in the local part). > > > This still means that an IRI like: > > <http://www.w3.org/2005/08/sparql-protocol-query/#wsdl.interface(SparqlQuery)> > > can't be abbrevated except with the whole thing in the prefix. > > > I checked - this change does not fail any DAWG tests. > > This works because lexing is greedy so "ns:2" it isn't seen as "ns:" and the > number "2". We depend on this in quite a few ways (e.g. the letters of > keyword like SELECT inside a qname). > > <insert type="request for negative syntax tests"/>please<insert> > > > (b) he suggests editorial changes that disconnect > > the N3/turtle/SPARQL foo:bar notation from XML QNames > > I'm not inclinded to change the test names. > > I'm inclined to make the wording in the document use qname less (it's just > 2.1.1 and 2.1.2) > > I'm (mildly) not inclined to change the grammar rule names and the text about > the rules. > > > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Dec/0018.html > > > > It's not obvious to me that there's sufficient new information > > to reconsider the decision. I'm inclined to let him know that > > we have previously considered this issue and show him our > > decision records, but anyone who is persuaded by JJC's arguments > > that we should take another look will please say so. > > > > These tests make it pretty clear to me that we considered all sorts > > of details about qname syntax... > > > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#syntax-qname-07-rq > > syntax-qname-07.rq > > Approved > > syntax-qname-08.rq > > Approved > > syntax-qname-09.rq > > Approved > > syntax-qname-10.rq > > Approved > > syntax-qname-11.rq > > Approved > > syntax-qname-12.rq > > Approved > > syntax-qname-13.rq > > Approved > > syntax-qname-14.rq > > Approved > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#syntax-qname-14-rq > > > > > -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 4 January 2006 14:45:55 UTC