Re: NTriple review

Brian, this is a thumbs up!
Dave has done a great job!
I've read the document and
was especially OK with

> 3.1. Extended Backus-Naur Form (EBNF) Grammar
> ...
> literal        ::= langString | datatypeString
> langString     ::= '"' string '"' ( '@' language )?
> datatypeString ::= langString '^^' uriref
> language       ::= [a-z0-9]+ ('-' [a-z0-9]+ )?
>                    matching the production Language-Tag
>                    in Section 2.1 of [RFC 2396].
>                    Note: This EBNF cannot perform the
>                    counting required by the Primary-subtag
>                    and Subtag productions.

OK

> 3.2 Strings
> ...
> This escaping satisfies the [CHARMOD] section Reference Processing
> Model on making the full Unicode character range U+0 to U+10FFFF
> available to applications and providing only one way to escape any
> character.

OK

> 3.4. Example

we should maybe have some URI ref #'s in here...

> 3.5. N-Triples Tests
> The N-Triple test file at
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/ntriples/test.nt
> contains multiple tests of legal N-Triples.

OK and tested

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

PS I know that I have to improve as a reviewer
   e.g. for the schema document I can't tip at
   Frank's review...



                                                                                                                        
                    Brian McBride                                                                                       
                    <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.co       To:     "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>, "Dave Beckett"      
                    m>                         <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>                                             
                    Sent by:                  cc:     Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org       
                    w3c-rdfcore-wg-requ       Subject:     Re: NTriple review                                           
                    est@w3.org                                                                                          
                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                        
                    2002-11-11 03:33 PM                                                                                 
                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                        





Jos,

Please clarify:  as a named reviewer, have you read the updated section of
this document and are you giving it a thumbs up to publish?

Brian


At 14:15 11/11/2002 +0100, Jos De_Roo wrote:


>just to make sure, are we reviewing
>http://www.w3.org/2001/08/rdf-test/
>?
>
>I'm also very glad that
>http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/ntriples/test.nt
>is updated and we have it working well
>
>-- ,
>Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
>
>
>
>
>                     Dave
> Beckett
>
>                     <dave.beckett@brist       To:     Jeremy Carroll
> <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
>                     ol.ac.uk>                 cc:
> w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>                     Sent by:                  Subject:     Re: NTriple
> review
>                     w3c-rdfcore-wg-requ
>
>                     est@w3.org
>
>
>
>
>
>                     2002-11-11 01:31
> PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>Jeremy Carroll said:
> >
> > >>language ::= [a-z0-9][a-z0-9-]+
> > >>
> > >>(delete ref to REC-xml#sec-lang-tag)
> > >
> > >
> > > Why?  I guess this is incomplete since it is refering obliquely to
> > > multiple changing RFCs.  Is checking this unimportant?  Is it defined
> > > elsewhere that is better pointed at?
> >
> > This is editorial at this point, sounds as though we should stick with
> > what you've got.
> >
> > >
> > > If I used the above defn, it would be good to explain where it came
> > > from.
> >
> > If you ant that then something like grahams text
>
>ant=want ? :)
>
> > [[
> >     The language tag is composed of one or more parts: A primary
language
> >     subtag and a (possibly empty) series of subsequent subtags.
> >
> >     The syntax of this tag in ABNF [RFC 2234] is:
> >
> >      Language-Tag = Primary-subtag *( "-" Subtag )
> >
> >      Primary-subtag = 1*8ALPHA
> >
> >      Subtag = 1*8(ALPHA / DIGIT)
> >
> >     The productions ALPHA and DIGIT are imported from RFC 2234; they
> >     denote respectively the characters A to Z in upper or lower case
and
> >     the digits from 0 to 9.  The character "-" is HYPHEN-MINUS (ABNF:
> >     %x2D).
> > ]]
> >
> > is the relevant stuff from RFC 3066, XML got burnt because this was a
> > change from RFC 1766 which XML initially copied.
>
>Yes, that's what I was thinking of.
>
>
>If you are happy with this, I'll make a change, trying try to put
>this in terms of this syntax; see below
>
> > In terms of N-triple syntax, a minimal change to your text would be
> >
> > language ::= ( character - ('.'|'^' | ws )) +
> >
> > to avoid the ambiguity on datatyping, keeping the comment.
>
>Hmm, the EBNF we are using from
>http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#sec-notation can't express the length
>restrictions of RFC3066 on the primary-subtag and subtag.
>
>so at best we can have:
>
>   language ::= [A-Za-z0-9]+ ('-' [A-Za-z0-9]+ )?
>
>or if we go for lowercase only
>
>   language ::= [a-z0-9]+ ('-' [a-z0-9]+ )?
>
>I'm prefering the latter I think; with pointers to the RFC3066
>section above.  The current N-Triples language definition is too far
>away from the RFC3066 etc. version.
>
>Dave

Received on Monday, 11 November 2002 11:13:35 UTC