- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 09:44:04 -0400
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- CC: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 09/18/2013 09:07 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: >>>> 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) > It looks like I made a mistake hand-reading the grammar, thanks. -- Sandro > 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 13:44:12 UTC