good evening; > On 2015-11-29, at 16:04, Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote: > > On 29/11/15 11:33, james anderson wrote: >> good morning; >> >>> On 2015-11-29, at 11:33, Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote: >>> […] >>> >>>> >>>> Is there any theoretical or technical obstacle to this? >>> >>> There's no obstacle. A Google Summer of Code project added this to Apache >>> Jena this year and it'll be in the next release. >>> >>> It follows the design you gave: >>> >>> https://jena.apache.org/documentation/query/construct-quad.html >> >> while a quite reasonable extension proposal and one which leads one to >> wonder why it was left out of the 1.1 recommendation, there are questions. > > Many reasons: > > No standardized syntax and MIME type. > SPARQL 1.1 predates standardized Trig and N-quads - indeed, > "RDF Dataset" was not in RDF - it was only in SPARQL. > > Limited resources. Limited time. Limited interest. > http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql-features/ > >> - what identifier does arq intend to us in the service description to >> indicate its support >> - as a matter of interoperability, is the elided graph case in the “complete >> form” example really in instance of the grammar which appears later in the >> document? given the example, this reader would have expected a production of >> the form >> ( 'GRAPH’ )? VarOrIri '{' TriplesTemplate? ‘}’ > > i.e. "TriG-with-variables", rather than SPARQL Update quad blocks.
should i take the absence of a response on the question of the actual grammar to mean that my correction, above, is actually correct? > >> - which end does the elision serve? > > Thank you to Google for funding the work of Qihong Lin. > > Getting the project finished in time matters. GSoC projects are fixed length. > > It is also desirable for it to be a simple extension for everyone but it is > not incremental to add and remain LL(1) AKA easy parsing (it's 3 separate > additional local LL(2) changes I think); obviously it is possible to do > convert LL(2) to LL(1) but it needs rewriting all the template rules, making > it not a just local change in one rule. > > Not everyone is using the same parser generator (ARQ uses javacc so lots of > bells and whistles here like variable local lookahead). The GRAPH > implementation is a local change in one part of the grammar. > > When in standards mode (default), the grammar remains what is in the spec, > not something supposedly equivalent. those are all circumstantial contingencies. should i understand from that list that there was the only function motivation was the “trig with variables”, above? best regards, from berlin, --- james anderson | ja...@dydra.com | http://dydra.com
