W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > January 2006

Re: SPARQL: W3C QA Guidelines conformance

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 02:49:19 +0100
To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <337ot1h81lsj89e2bdo0v8cqp1n082eio6@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>>   http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20050721/ does not
>> conform to <http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/PR-qaframe-spec-20050629/>
>> (e.g., there is no conformance clause, keywords like "must" are not
>> defined), please change the draft such that it does.
>
>Thank you for your comment. The editor's draft now has a conformance
>section [CNF]. Since SPARQL Query does not define an implementation,
>we rely on SPARQL Protocol to define conformance.
>[[
>B Conformance
>
>See appendix A grammar regarding conformance of _SPARQL Query
>strings_, and section 10 Query Result Forms for conformance of query
>results. See appendix E. Internet Media Type for conformance to the
>application/sparql-query media type.
>
>This specification is intended for use in conjuction with the SPARQL
>Protocol [SPROT] and the SPARQL Query Results XML Format
>[RESULTS]. See those specifications for their conformance criteria.
>
>Note that the SPARQL protocol describes an abstract interface as well
>as a network protocol, and the abstract interface may apply to APIs as
>well as network interfaces.
>]]
>
>If this is satisfactory, please indicate so in a response (with
>[CLOSED] in the subject, if you wish). If not, please send more 
>feedback.
>
>[CNF] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#conformance

Editorial remarks: rather than _x_ this should probably use <em> or
something like that; the other appendices have a full stop after the
letter, so the title should probably be "B. Conformance", the title
of Appendix A. is "SPARQL Grammar" not "grammar", similar for appendix
E; the references to the other appendices should be links.

The references section still has the RFC2119 reference that's never
referred to in the text, the usual "the key words ... in RFC 2119"
text seems to be missing. I assume that's editorial aswell.

I didn't review the draft against SpecGL in detail, but with these
editorial nits fixed, I think I'm happy with this. Thanks.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Sunday, 29 January 2006 01:48:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:50 GMT