- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 14:48:01 +0100
- To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On 05/10/11 14:43, Matthew Perry wrote: > Hi Andy, > > That should be fine. I assume that for query the last BASE given will > override the previous ones, and only the last BASE will be used to > expand relative URIs. Yes, noting that the URI may be relative in the second base. BASE <http://example/> BASE <foo/> ==> base is <http://example/foo/> Have you test to suggest if you think it needs clarification? (it existed in SPARQL 1.0, but a less obviously) Andy > > Thanks, > Matt > > On 10/5/2011 9:38 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> >> >> On 04/10/11 16:16, Matthew Perry wrote: >>> Thanks Andy. >>> >>> I also noticed that multiple BASE declarations are allowed in 1.1: >>> Prologue ::= ( BaseDecl | PrefixDecl )* >>> >>> Is this intentional? Only one BASE declaration was allowed in 1.0: >>> Prologue ::= BaseDecl? PrefixDecl* >> >> Intentional - yes. It wasn't a big thing though. >> >> In SPARQL 1.0, base URIs could be relative even though there was one >> one base (relative the URI of the query file). >> >> Update adds the possibility of prologues (BASE, PREFIX) before any >> operation, so BASE...BASE existed in Update. >> >> So making it a general ( BaseDecl | PrefixDecl )* seemed like a >> simplification. >> >> Is there some problem with that? >> >> Andy >> >> >> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Matt >>> >>> On 9/28/2011 5:30 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote: >>>> Looks like a bug to me. >>>> >>>> I've made a note in rq25 (editors draft) so it does not get lost: >>>> >>>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#editors-notes >>>> >>>> and added it to >>>> >>>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/PostLastCall >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Andy >>>> >>>> On 28/09/11 14:14, Matthew Perry wrote: >>>>> Hi Andy, >>>>> >>>>> I was working on a SPARQL 1.1 parser and noticed that this filter did >>>>> not parse: >>>>> >>>>> FILTER(3+3+4*5*2*3=126) >>>>> >>>>> I believe there is a problem with the AdditiveExpression production: >>>>> >>>>> AdditiveExpression ::= MultiplicativeExpression ( '+' >>>>> MultiplicativeExpression | '-' MultiplicativeExpression | ( >>>>> NumericLiteralPositive | NumericLiteralNegative ) ( ( '*' >>>>> UnaryExpression ) | ( '/' UnaryExpression ) )? )* >>>>> >>>>> I think >>>>> ( ( '*' UnaryExpression ) | ( '/' UnaryExpression ) )*?* >>>>> should be >>>>> ( ( '*' UnaryExpression ) | ( '/' UnaryExpression ) )*** >>>>> >>>>> Of course, I could have made a mistake somewhere else to cause the >>>>> problem too. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Matt >>>> >>> >> > >
Received on Wednesday, 5 October 2011 13:49:08 UTC