W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: review of rq23 1.377

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 13:55:20 +0100
Message-ID: <42AD8238.2090607@hp.com>
To: kendall@monkeyfist.com
CC: DAWG Mailing List <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

Kendall Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 01:22:12PM +0100, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
>>Protocol And RDF Query Language (SPARQL) [I think the acronym for
>>>the query language and protocol shouldn't be overloaded in this document 
>>>to refer to the query language alone. It's potentially confusing and bad 
>>>marketing to boot.] for easy access to RDF stores. It is designed to 
>>>meet the requirements and design objectives described in RDF Data Access 
>>>Use Cases and Requirements <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-dawg-uc/>
>>There isn't a separe name for the query language.  It already says "query 
>>language part of".
> Then there should be. But "SPARQL query language" works fine for me. I use
> "SPARQL protocol" in the protocol doc. I guess I should use "SPARQL" like
> you do, then maybe the confusion will be more obvious?

Hmm - the QL is SPARQL already is "query language" so that is "query language 
query language" as the acronym is expanded at that point.

"query language part of the"

avoids that.

> All over the DAWG page we say "SPARQL query language" rather than just
> "SPARQL", because that would confuse people.
> (And, further on, it says "The simplest graph pattern is the triple
> patterns" now: I think you mean s/patterns/pattern/?)
>>>Later sections of this document describe how other graph patterns can be 
>>>built using the graph operators |OPTIONAL <#optionals>| and |UNION 
>>><#alternatives>|,; how they may be grouped <#GroupPatterns> together; 
>>>and also how queries can extract information from more than one graph 
>>><#queryDataset>; and how It is also possible to restrict the values 
>>>allowed in matching a pattern.
>>Kept the last part as-is because it emphaises the combination of triples 
> FWIW, it should be semicolons separating these phrases, or commas, but not a
> mixture of both.

I see pandas.

>>Kept as is : To me, "consumer" is no better than "client" or "application" 
>>(we don't talk about "producers").
> Well, it's shorter (which counts) and it covers both "clients" and
> "applications". What's the difference between a client and an application?
> And there's no rule that says if you use "consumer" you have to use
> "producer". But, fine, this was only a suggestion, after all. ;>
> Thanks for the response, Andy.
> Kendall Clark

Received on Monday, 13 June 2005 12:57:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:47 UTC