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

Re: R2RML spec. comments (mostly editorial)

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:25:41 +0100
Cc: "public-rdb2rdf-comments@w3.org" <public-rdb2rdf-comments@w3.org>
Message-Id: <94B81DF1-D441-4DBE-A730-17F58E214078@cyganiak.de>
To: "Barclay, Daniel [USA]" <Barclay_Daniel@bah.com>
Hi Daniel,

Thanks for the careful review! Comments inline.

On 13 Sep 2012, at 17:48, Barclay, Daniel [USA] wrote:
> Regarding the R2RML: RDB to RDF Mapping Language specification currently
> at http://www.w3.org/TR/r2rml/:
> In 4.1: "Explicit typing of the resources in a mapping graph with R2RML classes is 
>  OPTIONAL.  Their presence in a graph has no effect on the behaviour of an R2RML 
>  processor. ":
>  In "Explicit typing ...  is OPTIONAL.  Their presence ...," that occurrence of "their" isn't 
>  quite right.
>  (For the plural "their," the only (explicit) candidate for the antecedent of "their" is
>  "the resources," but the saying "the presence of the resources" has no effect would
>  be a major contradiction.)
>  If the intended antecedent is the "explicit typing,"  then "their" needs to be "its."
>  If the intended antecedent is the (implicitly alluded-to) declarations that represent/
>  implement the "explicit typing," then "their" should probably be something like
>  "declarations."

I simply combined both sentences to: "Explicit typing of the resources in a mapping graph with R2RML classes is optional and has no effect on the behaviour of an R2RML processor."

> In 4.4: " For tables without a primary key, the Direct Graph requires that a fresh blank 
>   node is created for each row. ":
>  That "... requires that ... node is" should be ..." requires that ... node be..." (subjunctive
>  rather than indicative).


> In 4.4: "... re-use ...": 
>  That should probably be simply "... reuse ..."

Fixed, as well as another instance of "re-use" in 4.1.

> In 5: "Double quotes inside delimited identifiers must be immediately followed by 
>  another double quote.":
>  That would be clearer if "Double quotes ..." were changed to  "A double-quote ..." 
>  (or "A double-quote character ..."). 
>  (The mixing of plural and singular seems to make the original statement ambiguous,
>  or at least unclear.)
>  ** Wait--that's still broken--per that wording, the first double quote (inside the identifier) 
>  generates an infinite substring of double-quote characters.  
>  Something needs to be reworded to avoid that recursion.  Maybe adding a word or two
>  to distinguish escaping vs. escaped (encoded) double quotes, or represented vs. actual
>  double quotes, or something similar, would solve the problem.

Changed the sentence to: "A double-quote character inside a delimited identifier is escaped by appending a second double-quote character."

> 5: "... delimited identifiers that are not in all-upper-case are not ...":
>  That "... are not in all-upper-case ..." probably should be "... are not in all upper 
>  case ..." or "... are not all-upper-case ...").
>  (The following "... all-upper-case delimited and undelimited identifiers are ..." is .. fine.) 
>  (I can't tell if "upper case" and "upper-case"  should be "uppercase"; my dictionary lists
>  both.)

Changed to "... are not all-upper-case ...".

The latest Editor's Draft is here:

A diff of the changes since PR (which are basically just yours) are here:

All the best,
Received on Monday, 17 September 2012 15:26:41 UTC

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