W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > July 2010

Re: SPARQL WG Soliciting Early Reviews of Working Drafts

From: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 08:44:00 +1000
Message-ID: <AANLkTin3Z1bniCoXLr9DC0JIjKxZFX7kZ-h_ci5aAKHi@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Cc: SPARQL Working Group Comments <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>
On 2 July 2010 05:04, Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net> wrote:
> (Apologies for posting to multiple groups.)
>
> The SPARQL Working Group is still working on all of our specifications. None
> are yet at Last Call, though we feel our designs are quite stable and we're
> hoping to reach Last Call within a few months. Standard W3C process
> encourages interested community members to review Working Drafts as they're
> produced, but especially encourages reviews of Last Call drafts.
>
> While we will of course do this (solicit as widespread review of our Last
> Call drafts as possible), I'd like to put out a call for reviews of our
> current set of Working Drafts. If you can only do one review, you're
> probably best off waiting for Last Call; but if you have the inclination and
> time, it would be great to receive reviews of our current set of Working
> Drafts at our comments list at public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org. The Working
> Group has committed to responding formally to all comments received from
> hereon out.
>
> For a list of our current Working Drafts along with some specific areas in
> which the group would appreciate feedback (general reviews are always most
> welcome), please see:
>
> http://www.thefigtrees.net/lee/blog/2010/07/early_sparql_reviews.html
>
> thanks,
> Lee
> On Behalf of the SPARQL WG
>
>

The June 1 SPARQL Federation draft [1] doesn't make it clear how
GRAPHS and FROM/FROM NAMED etc map to, or are omited from, Federated
queries. It does say "with a query Q and no default-graph-uri or
named-graph-uri" in section 4.1, but it doesn't make it clear in the
examples. Is the idea is that you can't use GRAPH/FROM/FROM NAMED when
you are using SERVICE.

Personally, I would find it much more useful if Federation wasn't
restricted to the default graph, as any number of endpoints may not
have any data at all in the default graph which would make them immune
to federated queries. I wouldn't like to see Federation introduced at
the expense of graphs.

In the BINDINGS syntax, is it 'UNDEF' or 'UNBOUND'. Currently both are
used but they seem to have the same meaning.

In the section 3 example there is the variable ?human in the bindings
section, and ?species in the main part of the query. Is ?human
supposed to provide values for ?species, as it is not used apart from
that. Seems like a typo where ?human needs to be changed to ?species.

Cheers,

Peter

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-sparql11-federated-query-20100601/
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2010 22:44:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 1 July 2010 22:44:36 GMT