good afternoon; On 2015-01-14, at 14:12, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 14/01/15 12:39, james anderson wrote: >> good afternoon; >> >> the documentation notes for jena’s sparql s-expression syntax ends with the >> following passage. >> >> SSE Grammar >> @@ insert grammar here >> >> whereby, the document itself actually already describes all of the >> distinguishing features of the grammar. >> >> the missing information is the enumeration of the operator names and their >> signatures. >> it would not even be necessary to have their definitions, as those would >> likely follow from the sparql grammar and language semantics. >> >> is such a list hidden somewhere in the source tree? > > https://github.com/apache/jena/blob/master/jena-arq/Grammar/sse/sse.jj > > Tokens are very literal. as they well should be. > > This is styled like lisp - the way the data structure gets used defines the > operators (I presume you mean SPARQL algebra? yes, > SSE used elsewhere as well) not the syntactic language. but i guess i do not understand the difference, since the point of s-expressions is to muddy the distinction between surface and abstract syntax. > > https://github.com/apache/jena/blob/master/jena-arq/src/main/java/com/hp/hpl/jena/sparql/sse/Tags.java ok. so, in the lisp sense, these two are the reader and the package definitions. there still needs to be something which defines the signatures, that is, the function types. best regards, from berlin, --- james anderson | [email protected] | http://dydra.com
