ADQL grammar validation

[François Bonnarel]

+1 on Dave's plan too.

Cheers

François


Le 28/04/2017 à 10:29, Marco Molinaro a écrit :
> 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