Re: Issues found in Turtle spec

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Andy Seaborne <
andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 29/08/11 21:36, Alex Hall wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Gavin Carothers <gavin@topquadrant.com
>> <mailto:gavin@topquadrant.com>**> wrote:
>>
>>     > The list example in section 6 uses a list on it's own, without a
>>    predicate
>>     > or object, which is not allowed by the grammar (neither is a
>>     > blankNodeProperyList). Either the EBNF should be updated to allow
>>    for these
>>     > forms, or the examples should be changed such that ( ... ) and [
>>    ... ] are
>>     > used only in the context of being a subject or object. This
>>    implementation
>>     > will generate triples, however an error will be generated if the
>>    parser is
>>     > run in validation mode.
>>
>>    It seems likely that this is more of the same errors from above,
>>    examples that are not valid Turtle should likely be removed from the
>>    specification as just noting that they aren't valid doesn't seem to be
>>    enough.
>>
>>
>> This is a deviation from SPARQL, where collections and blank node
>> property lists are allowed on their own in addition to as the subject or
>> object of a triple.  Whether to amend Turtle to match the SPARQL
>> definition in this respect is an open issue:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/**track/issues/19<http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/19>
>>
>> (This deals only with blank node property paths, but a resolution on
>> this issue should also apply to collections).
>>
>> -Alex
>>
>
> The SPARQL 1.1 Query last call document has note to allow removing
> free-standing lists e.g. SELECT * { (1 ?x 3 4) . }
>
> See red box at:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-**query/#grammar<http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#grammar>


Thanks for pointing that out.  In that case the free-standing collection
example should be removed from the Turtle draft.

-Alex