[EDITORIAL] Preface of rq24

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/rq24.html

I would prefer that:
	Should DISTINCT be based on lean graphs?
Be phrased as
	What is the definition of DISTINCT?


And:
	Should SPARQL care about graphs that are inconsistent by D-entailment?

as:
	What are the answers of a query of a D-inconsistent graph?

About:
	Should isLiteral observe D-entailment? Should it validate lexical  
values?
I thought we settled that isLiteral applies only to literals (not  
data values). Forgive me if I perpetuated a confusion there. The  
issue in question is whether operators should apply to arbitrary data  
values, or to ones with literal form only.

Finally, I would prefer a different phrasing for:
	"""Many of these issues reduce to "Is SPARQL a graph query language  
or a higher level query language?" """"

Or rather, dropping it altogether. Both "graph query language" and  
"higher level query language" are imprecise and non standard, so I  
think are more confusing than helpful. If I were to rephrase it, I  
might say:
	"Many of these issues revolve around, "Should SPARQL be sensitive to  
the syntax or the semantics of RDF graphs, and how."

But without specifying which issues do so and how, I think it's more  
confusing than helpful.

Cheers,
Bijan.

Received on Tuesday, 12 September 2006 11:27:21 UTC