[x3d-public] VRML grammar, X3DJSONLD JSON report. Was: Re: [...] HAnim2 X3D4 BoxMan update: does ClassicVRML Grammar allows ROUTE in children?
John Carlson
yottzumm at gmail.com
Thu Jan 5 21:01:24 PST 2023
ClassicVRML, batch parsing?
I guess the primary thing to do is validate vrml examples against a
hand-checked vrml grammar. I think what you’re saying is, the standardized
3.3 grammar for ClassicVRML already works great in X3D-Edit. Do i test
with the check button? Do we do hand-checks with each vrml file—can we
batch up a set of files? SHIFT-left mouse click?
I fully realize that many tools provide some degree of parsing of VRML.
What i am asking for is batch validation.
At this point, it seems like we’re trying to validate the X3D VRML grammar
found in the 3.3 standard, either with tools or otherwise (vrml examples
and human brains), and possibly upgrade to grammar for 4.0.
If it’s possible to translate ClassicVRML to .x3d and then validate, that
seems like a good path, if we add batching.
——————
ROUTEs and JSON
I do remember when we dealt with JSON, we had to bring out ROUTEs from
inner contexts, but I don’t remember the reason.
For X3DJSONLD, all JSON based ROUTEs come from X3dToJson.xslt. If you need
to test JSON roundtrips of this stylesheet, let me know.
Note, I have DOM2JSONSerializer.js, but it gets into deep recursion calls
beyond my debugging capabilities at this point, so I can’t offer a solution
there. I can’t recall if I handled ROUTEs properly or not.
I also think that X3dToJson.xslt may not working in some cases
“IllegalChild… was getting generated on some JSON files, but these problems
are not currently reproduced (try using a *recent* Saxon-JS in a web
browser—the problem presented itself in a web browser is old versions of
Saxon-CE, not the Java versions).
I have gotten rid of the JSON files since I can’t regenerate them.
Any additional X3dToJson.xslt problems swept under the carpet for now. I
may need to update the Saxon-JS on my website. X3DJSONLD git push is
currently not working, i may need to delete some build files from my
repository.
——
On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 6:55 PM Brutzman, Donald (Don) (CIV) <
brutzman at nps.edu> wrote:
> Simple summary of ROUTE conversions:
>
>
>
> 1. We will allow ROUTEs as children, as always intended.
> 2. If the ClassicVRML Grammar indeed needs modification, we will
> define that for Mantis and 2023 ClassicVRML revision.
> 3. As soon as we reach consensus, we will ask converters to fix
> support for ROUTEs.
>
>
>
> Quality assurance (QA) efforts are all focused on XML and X3DUOM mappings
> to different program languages. No need to autogenerate a ClassicVRML
> Grammar that exists and has pretty-much worked for the past quarter century
> (since 1997). If we figure out and confirm an improvement, then wow +
> bravo everyone!! If we determine that it is OK, we’ve learned more too.
>
>
>
> all the best, Don
>
> --
>
> Don Brutzman Naval Postgraduate School, Code USW/Br
> brutzman at nps.edu
>
> Watkins 270, MOVES Institute, Monterey CA 93943-5000 USA
> +1.831.656.2149
>
> X3D graphics, virtual worlds, Navy robotics https://
> faculty.nps.edu/brutzman
>
>
>
> *From:* John Carlson <yottzumm at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 5, 2023 3:46 PM
> *To:* Brutzman, Donald (Don) (CIV) <brutzman at nps.edu>
> *Cc:* Joseph D Williams <joedwil at earthlink.net>; Michalis Kamburelis <
> michalis.kambi at gmail.com>; Patrick Dähne <pdaehne at gmail.com>; X3D Public
> Mailing List (x3d-public at web3d.org) <x3d-public at web3d.org>
> *Subject:* VRML grammar generator. Was: Re: [x3d-public] [...] HAnim2
> X3D4 BoxMan update: does ClassicVRML Grammar allows ROUTE in children?
>
>
>
> While I tried to find an issue with the VRML grammar, and i had several
> misperceptions, and on review, i didn’t find any problems that just “popped
> out.” Perhaps my dry eyes have worsened.
>
>
>
> Perhaps we should provide generation of VRML grammar from X3DUOM, if not
> done already? We can have thousands of checks of examples against VRML
> grammar, as you have said. I have not kept track of VRML “stuff.”
>
>
>
> Your thoughts? I know everyone (besides me) is busy.
>
>
>
> I can even try to accomplish myself with existing grammar and X3DUOM. I
> can try with writing Xslt first, and if that’s too burdensome, possibly
> start from the JSON schema generator and branch out.
>
>
>
> Trying to make this as easy for someone to do as possible, can we make the
> right implementation choice? What limitations? Declarative
> implementations seem important.
>
>
>
> I agree that supporting one-offs in X3D Validator is useful and we
> probably don’t want to support batch web-based validation at this time.
>
>
>
> I have also researched “schema from example” and “grammar from example.”
> It might be worth applying new AI research to this problem with the right
> prompt.
>
>
>
> Maybe i should apply AI to the JSON schema. Hmm!
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 11:01 AM Brutzman, Donald (Don) (CIV) <
> brutzman at nps.edu> wrote:
>
> Patrick, thanks for these important insights.
>
>
>
> Am looking closely and tracing the grammar. As you know, such grammars
> are very important because they formally and unambiguously describe what is
> allowed. Also pretty tricky to follow!
>
>
>
> - Extensible 3D (X3D) encodings, Part 2: Classic VRML encoding Annex A
> (normative), Grammar
> -
> https://www.web3d.org/documents/specifications/19776-2/V3.3/Part02/grammar.html
>
>
>
> Am finding following excerpts of interest. Hopefully addition of
> color-coding helps:
>
>
>
> 1. *node *::=
>
> nodeTypeId { *nodeBody* } |
>
> Script { scriptBody } |
>
> ComposedShader {composedShaderBody} |
>
> PackagedShader {packagedShaderBody} |
>
> ShaderProgram {shaderProgramBody} ;
>
> 1. *nodeBody *::=
>
> *nodeBodyElement* |
>
> *nodeBodyElement* *nodeBody* |
>
> empty ;
>
>
>
> 1. mfnodeValue ::=
>
> *nodeStatement *|
>
> [ ] |
>
> [ nodeStatements ] ;
>
>
>
> 1. nodeStatements ::=
>
> *nodeStatement* |
>
> *nodeStatement* nodeStatements ;
>
>
>
> 1. *nodeStatement*::=
>
> *node* |
>
> DEF nodeNameId *node* |
>
> USE nodeNameId ;
>
>
>
> 1. *nodeBodyElement *::=
>
> initializeOnlyId fieldValue |
>
> inputOutputId fieldValue |
>
> initializeOnlyId IS initializeOnlyId |
>
> inputOnlyId IS inputOnlyId |
>
> outputOnlyId IS outputOnlyId |
>
> inputOutputId IS inputOutputId |
>
> routeStatement |
>
> protoStatement ;
>
>
>
> 1. routeStatement ::=
>
> *ROUTE* nodeNameId . outputOnlyId TO nodeNameId . inputOnlyId ;
>
>
>
> 1. *statement* ::=
>
> *nodeStatement* |
>
> importStatement |
>
> exportStatement |
>
> protoStatement |
>
> routeStatement ;
>
>
>
> 1. sfnodeValue ::=
>
> *nodeStatement *|
>
> NULL ;
>
>
>
>
>
> So it looks like there are several chains of interest as follows:
>
>
>
> 1. mfnodeValue > nodeStatements > *nodeStatement* > *node *>
> nodeTypeId {* nodeBody* } > *nodeBodyElement* > routeStatement >
> *ROUTE*
>
>
>
> 1. sfnodeValue > *nodeStatement > *(etc. as shown immediately above in
> chain 1)
>
>
>
> 1. *statement* > routeStatement > *ROUTE*
>
>
>
> From these three chains in ClassicVRML grammar, it appears logical to
> conclude that *ROUTE* is allowed to appear wherever an MFNode, SFNode or
> statement is allowed to appear.
>
>
>
> That would be a consistent match with the parent-child relationships
> defined in X3D XML Schema and DTD.
>
>
>
> Hopefully I have the chain of logic correct here. All scrutiny and review
> is welcome, we definitely need to get this right.
>
>
>
> If there is any unintended omission in the Backus-Naur logic here, then
> great! We can agree now on corrections, and fix any issues in this year’s
> expected update of the ClassicVRML encoding from X3D3 to X3D4. Correction
> of converters can also proceed immediately upon achieving consensus.
>
>
>
> - Wikipedia: Backus-Naur form
> - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backus-Naur_form
> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBackus-Naur_form&data=05%7C01%7Cbrutzman%40nps.edu%7Cb358dc688cae4c8421b408daef76faef%7C6d936231a51740ea9199f7578963378e%7C0%7C0%7C638085591553880829%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=KzgMBB%2F7DwoJbxm3aoofTIU%2F0Be6BiZ1r9Mnj8w%2F6Q4%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> Again thanks for careful strictness, careful checking of model content is
> one of our greatest strengths.
>
>
>
> Have fun with ClassicVRML X3D! 8)
>
>
>
> all the best, Don
>
> --
>
> Don Brutzman Naval Postgraduate School, Code USW/Br
> brutzman at nps.edu
>
> Watkins 270, MOVES Institute, Monterey CA 93943-5000 USA
> +1.831.656.2149
>
> X3D graphics, virtual worlds, Navy robotics https://
> faculty.nps.edu/brutzman
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: x3d-public <x3d-public-bounces at web3d.org> On Behalf Of Patrick Dähne
> Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 3:05 AM
> To: Joseph D Williams <joedwil at earthlink.net>
> Cc: X3D Public Mailing List (x3d-public at web3d.org) <x3d-public at web3d.org>
> Subject: Re: [x3d-public] [...] HAnim2 X3D4 BoxMan update
>
>
>
>
>
> > Am 05.01.2023 um 03:33 schrieb Joseph D Williams <joedwil at earthlink.net
> >:
>
> >
>
> > • Classic VRML does not allow to declare ROUTEs inside
> MFNode fields. Move them outside.
>
> >
>
> > There may be other x3d Statements and some rules, but I don’t see any
> spec language for what you describe regarding ROUTE.
>
>
>
> The (only) relevant part of the „Classic VRML encoding“ spec is „Annex A:
> Grammar“:
>
>
>
> https://www.web3d.org/documents/specifications/19776-2/V3.3/index.html
>
>
>
> The grammar is written in Backus-Naur form. It is the „Scheme“ of classic
> encoding. Have a look at the rule „mfnodeValue“. You won’t find the symbol
> „routeStatement“ on the right hand side of that rule.
>
>
>
> ROUTEs are only allowed:
>
>
>
> 1. At the top level of the scene
>
> 2. Inside the node body (between fields)
>
>
>
> In my opinion it does not make much sense to forbid ROUTEs inside MFNode
> fields, and I am actually surprised that someone implemented it such
> strictly.
>
>
>
> Bye,
>
>
>
> Patrick
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> x3d-public mailing list
>
> x3d-public at web3d.org
>
> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> x3d-public mailing list
> x3d-public at web3d.org
> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://web3d.org/pipermail/x3d-public_web3d.org/attachments/20230105/99417f6b/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the x3d-public
mailing list