W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdb2rdf-comments@w3.org > September 2012

Direct Mapping spec. comments (mostly editorial)

From: Barclay, Daniel [USA] <Barclay_Daniel@bah.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 17:27:17 +0000
To: "public-rdb2rdf-comments@w3.org" <public-rdb2rdf-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E8EABA0B9C96344D8252DA287EBCC39E2BCEEA@ASHBDAG3M3.resource.ds.bah.com>
Regarding the A Direct Mapping of Relational Data to RDF specification
currently at http://www.w3.org/TR/rdb-direct-mapping/:

In 2.1: "Each foreign keys produces ...":  

  That should be "Each ... key ..." (or "Each of the ... keys ...").

In 2.1: "... the row identifiers (<Addresses/ID=18>) for the referenced

  That should be "... the row identifier ..."

In 2.2: "Foreign keys referencing candidate keys":

  Was the "candidate" supposed to be "composite"?

In 2.2: "More complex schemas include composite primary keys.":

  That "composite primary keys" should be "composite keys" (that section
  isn't talking about _primary_ keys).

In 2.2: "Per the People tables's compound foreign key...": "table's"

In 2.3: "The triples involving <Department/ID=23> would be substituted 
  with the following...":

  That should be "... replaced with ..."

In 2.4: "If there is no primary key, rows implies a set of triples with
  a shared subject, but that subject is a blank node.":

  That's broken (and it's not clear what the intent was).

In 2.5: "... foreign keys reference candidate keys and candidate keys 
  are ...":

  That might be clearer as: "... foreign keys refer to candidate keys 

In 2.5: "... keys with mutual column names.":

  That "mutual column names" seems ambiguous.  

In 2.5: "For clarity; ...":  semicolon -> comma

In 2.5: "For clarity[,] here is ... to clarify ...": redundant

In 2.5: "For clarity[,] here is ... to clarify ...": 

  Given the multiple foreign keys, it would be clearer if the text had 
  some pointer to a key (representive) one.

In 3: "A base IRI defines a web space for the IRIs in this graph.":

  That "web space" should probably be "URI space" (well, "IRI space").

In 3: "An SQL table has a set of uniquely-named columns and a set of 
  foreign keys, each mapping a <column name list> to a <unique column 
  list> (a list of columns in some table).":

  That wording seems ambiguous (between grouping as "has (A and B), 
  each ..." vs. as "has A and (B, each) ... ").

  Maybe "... and a set of foreign ... " should be "... and has a set of 
  foreign ... "

In 3: Re single quotes around characters:

  If that's because they're characters instead of strings, remember that 
  this is English, not computer language that uses single quotes for 

  If the specification is supposed to be in American English, then those 
  should be double quotes.  

In 3: "blank node that is unique to this row.":
  That doesn't (locally) specify the scope of that uniqueness.  Is that
  scope specified somewhere?

In A.1: "The definitions follow a type-as-specification approach, thus 
  the models are ...":  

  The comma should be a  semicolon (or a sentence break).

In A.4.[35]: "Replace the string with the IRI-safe form of that 

  That doesn't make sense grammatically (the reference to "that 
  character" has no antecedent), and maybe not otherwise either.

  Should that be something like "replace each problematic character 
  in the string with ... character" (with "problematic" replaced with 
  a more technical term)?

In A.4.[36]: (with English Syntax enabled) "lexical form of ...": 

  It seems that that should be "Lexical form of ..." (capitalized like
  sibling noun phrases).
  (indicative- or imperative-mood(?)) sentence

In A.4.[37]: " ... join(...) ...":

  Is "join(...)" defined?

In B: "... inspired by previous approach ...":

  That probably should be "a previous approach" (or "previous 

Received on Friday, 14 September 2012 16:33:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:45:17 UTC