- From: Adrian Gschwend <ktk@netlabs.org>
- Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 16:24:04 +0100
- To: public-rdfjs@w3.org
- Message-ID: <52A09A94.1020008@netlabs.org>
On 05.12.13 12:27, Ruben Verborgh wrote: Hi Claus, hi Ruben, >> Sorry if I missed a relevant part of the discussion, but would it >> be possible to re-use and extend an existing SPARQL parser? Good question and as I missed those classes during my studies I am not really sure if I write complete BS now so I just give it a try: The whole SPARQL parser idea I had for two reasons: - I never wrote a parser or had a look at how it's done according to the CS classes. So I thought I need to do it once up to some point at least - I was pretty sure that at least Matteo would be interested in it and the work could be re-used by others like Austin (I talked about that subject once with him on IRC) Then I stumbled over a video from Crockford: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9e_oEE72d3U Where he claims writing parsers is easy with TDOP :) As mentioned his description is here, which I found a bit confusing: http://javascript.crockford.com/tdop/tdop.html These two articles implement it in Python and explain it a bit better IMHO: http://effbot.org/zone/simple-top-down-parsing.htm http://eli.thegreenplace.net/2010/01/02/top-down-operator-precedence-parsing/ The lexer is slowly getting ahead, the bigger challenge will be a TDOP based implementation of the SPARQL syntax. Now my question is am I completely on the wrong track here and should we stick to parser generators and describe the syntax simply in EBNF as Antonio & Austin probably do? > I don't know to what extent the "Turtle" inside SPARQL graphs > is/should be compatible with the latest Turtle CR (with of course the > exception of variables). However, if it is/should be, I see parsing > Turtle as a subproblem of parsing SPARQL. And since passing Turtle CR > spec suite has been non-trivial for many parser authors (including > myself), I wonder how easy it is to create SPARQL parsers. > > If the "Turtle" used by SPARQL is not supposed to be CR-compatible, > this argument is void of course. From what I know this should not be much different if at all. regards Adrian -- Adrian Gschwend @ netlabs.org ktk [a t] netlabs.org ------- Open Source Project http://www.netlabs.org
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2013 15:24:36 UTC