Re: Proposed: SPARQL grammar is complete as-is

On 2010-12-23, at 11:11, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:

> On 12/23/2010 5:23 AM, Steve Harris wrote:
>> On 2010-12-21, at 13:57, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
>>> As one step towards Last Call, can we agree that the grammar is complete as is? i.e., we do not intend to change any elements of the grammar beyond decisions that have already been made, whether it by syntax, keywords, functions, or anything else.
>>> If you think there is still any outstanding issues that impact on the grammar, please speak up ASAP -- otherwise we'll conclude that it the grammar is complete in a couple of days.
>> When you say as-is, can you provide a pointer to a specific version?
> Whatever's in CVS right now? I don't monitor deltas from checkin to checkin, but I was under the impression that the grammar has not been changing from checkin to checkin recently.
>> It's a bit hard to agree without that.
> Note that I'm not saying that we can't find bugs or such in the grammar and fix them, just asking if there are issues we have not dealt with or concluded that impact the grammar. Do you have something specific in mind?

No, I just didn't want to put any significant effort into checking it over pre-freeze if I was looking at the wrong version. I've not really been following the grammar, it's not my area, and Garlik's grammar maven is on holiday.

The current head of docs/sparql-grammar-11.html is 1.8, FWIW.

- Steve

Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD

Received on Thursday, 23 December 2010 11:24:45 UTC