Re: Call for Consensus: FPWD for Semantics, TriG, N-Triples, N-Quads

On 18/03/13 18:36, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
> On Mar 17, 2013, at 4:44 PM, Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public
>> Working Draft (FPWD) of the following four documents:
>>
>> RDF Semantics:
>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-mt/index.html#
>> TriG https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/trig/index.html
>> N-Triples:
>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/n-triples.html
>>
>>
N-Quads:
>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/nquads/index.html
>>
>> Silence will be taken to mean there is no objection, but positive
>> responses are encouraged. If there are no objections within the
>> time frame of one week, this resolution will carry.
>
> +1, but it should be noted that the N-Quads grammar does not allow
> triples. It states in 2.1 that the graph label IRI can be ommited,
> but the statement grammar rule does not allow for this. It could
> potentially be re-written as follows:
>
> [2] statement ::= WS* subject WS+ predicate WS+ ( graphLabel WS*)?
> '.' WS*

Good catch.

>
> Note that N-Quads are used in the JSON-LD toRDF test cases, and we
> depend on being able to use triples along with quads.
>
> Also, for N-Quads, as well as all the other formats, BLANK_NODE_LABEL
> can end with a ".", meaning that <a> <b> _:c. is not a valid triple,
> as the "_:c." lexically matches that BLAND_NODE_LABEL terminal, and
> the trailing "." is not found. Of course, this comes from SPARQL, so
> it's a long standing issue.

I see:

BLANK_NODE_LABEL ::=
    '_:' (PN_CHARS_U | [0-9]) ((PN_CHARS | '.')* PN_CHARS)?

so it can't end in DOT -- the DOT must be internal.  The final character 
of a two or more label must be from the second PN_CHARS, not the 
(PN_CHARS | '.')*

The "?" is on the whole of ((PN_CHARS | '.')* PN_CHARS)

	Andy

>
> Gregg
>
>> Considerations to note: - As a First Public Working Draft, this
>> publication will trigger patent policy review. - As a Working Draft
>> publication, the document does not need not be complete, to meet
>> all technical requirements, or to have consensus on the contents.
>>
>> Guus
>>
>
>

Received on Monday, 18 March 2013 18:52:26 UTC