Re: [Rdfapi-php-interest] N3Parser -> TurtleParser?

[Chris B. <bi...@ze...>]

Hi Evan,

what you are saying makes total sence. There were no clearly defined =
subsets of N3 when we implemented the first version of the =
parser/serializer. As there is Turtle now and the parser (hopefully) =
does Turtle, we should rename it.=20

It would be great if you could make the parser pass the Turtle =
conformance tests. Contributions there and also better error handling =
are highly welcome.

Cheers from ISWC in Ireland,

Chris
=20
  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Evan Prodromou=20
  To: RAP Interest=20
  Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 8:11 PM
  Subject: [Rdfapi-php-interest] N3Parser -> TurtleParser?


  So, I really like the N3Parser used by RAP. I'm wondering, though: =
since the parser handles just about the same subset of Notation3 that's =
implemented in Turtle (http://www.dajobe.org/2004/01/turtle/ ), I wonder =
if it wouldn't make sense to revise the parser to parse Turtle =
correctly.

  Turtle was designed to be Notation3 with all the bits that aren't =
really RDF left out; since this seems to be the point of the N3 parser =
in RAP, it should be a good fit. Using a "real" spec (as much as Turtle =
is a real spec) would be fairer to users, since they'd have a good idea =
what will and won't work with the library.

  In short: I'd like to hack on the N3Parser and N3Serializer such that =
they parse and produce correct Turtle. In particular, I'd like to make =
sure that the parser can handle the conformance test cases for Turtle =
(http://www.dajobe.org/2004/01/turtle/#sec-conformance  ). I'd also =
rename them to TurtleParser and TurtleSerializer and make the N3 classes =
deprecated compatibility classes. And I'd add the conformance tests as =
unit tests.

  Any feelings on the issue? If I make a patch and it's righteous, can =
it go in?

  ~ESP

        --=20
        Evan Prodromou <eva...@us...> =20