W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2006

Review of "rq24" reorg. of SPARQL Query Language for RDF (part 3)

From: Lee Feigenbaum <feigenbl@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 00:39:16 -0400
To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFA92CC4E4.CAA6DD46-ON852571CB.001946BD-852571CB.00198D95@us.ibm.com>

This is an early review of the reorganization of the SPARQL Query
Language for RDF specification known as rq24. I've divided the review
into comments on the overall structure and presentation of the document,
specific editorial comments on content in the document, and
layout/rendering nits. (Admittedly, some of the distinctions are a bit
arbitrary.) I have not attempted to review rq24 with respect
to substantive issues currently facing the working group, or as to the
correctness of the formal definitions. I have also not yet reviewed
section 11 Testing Values or the appendices.

In this note I present a few small nits about the 
layout/rendering/(visual) presentation of the material in the document.

Layout/Rendering Nits:

(I would be happy to correct most of these sorts of things without
bothering the editors, but assumed that a non-editor touching the drafts
is verboten.)

+ 1.1.*: The styles on the headings for section 1.1.1 is not consistent 
with
1.1.2 and 1.1.3.

+ 2.3.1: "because 42 is syntax" should be "because <code>42</code> is
syntax"

+ 2.*: I think all the examples should either include the "Data:",
"Query:" and "Query Result:" introductions, or all omit them.
(Currently, some include them and some omit them.) This actually applies
to the entire document, not just to 2.*.


(well, one of the three notes had to be short :-)

Lee
Received on Tuesday, 15 August 2006 04:39:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:27 GMT