On 01/12/12 07:39, Stephen Allen wrote:
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 6:43 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
On 29/11/12 23:13, Stephen Allen wrote:
Andy,
Thanks for the comments, very helpful. It is unfortunate that I
didn't look at this earlier in the year, but indeed my proposed change
would be relativ
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 6:43 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> On 29/11/12 23:13, Stephen Allen wrote:
>>
>> Andy,
>>
>> Thanks for the comments, very helpful. It is unfortunate that I
>> didn't look at this earlier in the year, but indeed my proposed change
>> would be relatively minor to the end user,
On 29/11/12 23:13, Stephen Allen wrote:
Andy,
Thanks for the comments, very helpful. It is unfortunate that I
didn't look at this earlier in the year, but indeed my proposed change
would be relatively minor to the end user, and I've figured out a
solution staying within the current spec!
More
Andy,
Thanks for the comments, very helpful. It is unfortunate that I
didn't look at this earlier in the year, but indeed my proposed change
would be relatively minor to the end user, and I've figured out a
solution staying within the current spec!
More comments inline:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at
Hi Stephen,
Adding requirements to the official SPARQL grammar by parsable in
particular ways is adding too much. The goal (SPARQL 1.0 and 1.1) is
it''s LL(1) AKA simple technically and that communicates. People can
implement the language in different ways and the grammar defines the
langua
All,
Some thoughts on Update grammar. Would love to get other's opinions
before posting a comment to the SPARQL WG.
I have been attempting to implement streaming updates in Jena. Part
of that effort has been rewriting recursive grammar definitions to
have no recursion (thus avoiding a stack ove
