- From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 14:07:10 +0100
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- CC: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
>>> On 16/09/13 13:39, Sandro Hawke wrote: >>>> - is it a bug that the grammar says (blankNodePropertyList | >>>> collection) >>>> can preceed { } but not if GRAPH is used? How about getting rid of >>>> triples2 and instead change labelOrSubject to include alternatives >>>> blankNodePropertyList and collection? I don't have a working >>>> grammar-driven-parser right now, so maybe I'm doing that wrong in my >>>> head. >>> >>> It was intentional as being the conservative choice. >>> >>> We did discuss >>> >>> GRAPH [:p 123 ; :q "" ] { ... } >>> [:p 123 ; :q "" ] { ... } >>> >>> but c.f. >>> >>> [:p 123 ; :q "" ] :predicate :object . >>> >>> the discussion did not result in an agreement. Restricting the graph >>> name to a single term form, not a triple generating one, is the >>> conservative choice at this point in time. >>> >> >> I don't have any opinion about whether we should allow >> >> GRAPH [:p 123 ; :q "" ] { ... } >> and >> [:p 123 ; :q "" ] { ... } >> >> but as I read the grammar it seems to be saying we allow the second of >> those two, but not the first. And that doesn't seem good. >> >> I agree the conservative route is to forbid this construction, but if >> so, I'd think we should forbid it in both forms. > > What derivation of rules allows > > [:p 123 ; :q "" ] { ... } > > ? > > A non [] blankNodePropertyList matches only: > > [4g] triples2 ::= > (blankNodePropertyList | collection) predicateObjectList? '.' > > > which must end in a '.' > > so > > [:p 123 ; :q "" ] . > { ... } > > is OK (bare Turtle, then a {} default graph part - ugly but hard to > avoid) but > > [:p 123 ; :q "" ] { ... } > > is not. > > Could provide a concrete example and the parse rules you are reading? Ping Sandro. (I have checked with a javacc parser and can not see how it can be accepted by the grammar) Andy > > Andy > >> >> -- Sandro >> >>> It would apply if the word GRAPH were not used via triplesOrGraph >>> (caveat: I do not have my reference parser on this machine) >>> >>> Andy >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> -- Sandro >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 18 September 2013 13:14:50 UTC