ADQL grammar validation

[Marco Molinaro]

Hi all,

I like Dave's plan too.

It has the advantage of moving forward a 2.1 version that we're
since long looking at, plus provides good ground for a 3.0
(even if I'm not sure that "by May 2018" would be feasible :) ).

I'm definitely not an expert in BNF and/or PEG, but what has been
presented here seems good and quite advanced in status. That's
promising.

Thank you all,
Cheers,
    Marco


2017-04-19 20:06 GMT+02:00 Patrick Dowler <pdowler.cadc at gmail.com>:
> +1 on Dave's plan
>
> On 19 April 2017 at 05:42, Dave Morris <dave.morris at metagrid.co.uk> wrote:
>> Based on this, I would like to propose the following plan.
>>
>> 1) We create a new WD of 2.1 with the changes from discussions since the
>> last interop.
>> 2) We add a note to say the BNF will probably be replaced in the next
>> version.
>> 3) In May we put the 2.1 draft forward as good enough for PR.
>>
>> 4) Work on 3.0 starts now.
>> 5) We use Grégory's and Walter's work as a basis for a new PEG grammar.
>> 6) We work on increasing the coverage of SQL features in the validation
>> queries.
>> 7) We work on the tools to validate the new grammar against those queries.
>> 8) We work on updating the main text to match the new grammar.
>
>> Is moving to PEG a good idea ?
>
> Looks promising.
>
>> Does moving to PEG mean a major version step, 2.x to 3.x ?
>
> I think so, yes.
>
>> Is 2.1 good enough for now ?
>
> I think 2.1 is still worth the (remianing) effort. If that means
> fixing/clarifying the document and still having a broken-ish BNF then
> at least we can clearly state that.
>
>
> --
> Patrick Dowler
> Canadian Astronomy Data Centre
> Victoria, BC, Canada