Re: Bare collections in Turtle and TriG

For those not able to make the telecon today:

This response will form the WG response to CR-8/ISSUE-173 unless anyone 
in the WG has any comments within the next 20 hours:

 Andy



http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/CR_Comments

https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/173

 > Proposed response:
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Richard,
>
> Thank you for your comment regarding collections in Turtle and TriG. The
> Working Group agrees that it is desirable that Turtle and TriG be
> aligned here and the Working Group wishes to avoid:
>
> () .
>
> being a legal document.
>
> There is a bug in the TriG grammar and the following change has been
> made to rule 4g of TriG:
>
>
> [4g]     triples2     ::=
>       (blankNodePropertyList | collection) predicateObjectList? '.'
>
> ==>
>
> [4g]     triples2     ::=
>       blankNodePropertyList predicateObjectList? '.'
>          |
>          collection predicateObjectList '.'
>
>
> A collection must be followed by a predicate-object-list as in Turtle.
>
> This removes ( 1 2 3 ) . as a legal TriG document.  It also removes () .
>   as a legal document.  The 'collection' in TriG and Turtle rule allows
> the empty collection () which is no triples.
>
> To go further and to keep alignment, requires significant changes to
> Turtle which the working group does not have the time to execute on even
> if there were general agreement it is desirable change to the language.
>
> If this addresses your comment, please reply with the subject prefixed
> by "[RESOLVED]".
>
>      Andy
>      on behalf of the RDF Working Group
>      (also involved in the development of the SPARQL Grammar)

Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2013 22:08:17 UTC