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

Re: Summary of my comments: close many, please add some to issue list

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:46:52 +0100
Message-Id: <38C3EE96-C95E-4C4F-87F6-D1AF6394E211@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
To: Fred Zemke <fred.zemke@oracle.com>

This is in discharge of my action item to review and relate Fred's  
comments to current issues.

On Aug 2, 2006, at 8:24 PM, Fred Zemke wrote:

>
> Master list of my comments
>
> In the telecon on 1 Aug 2006, I was asked to state which of my
> comments I regard as closed.  I also learned about the issue
> list.  Following up on the telecon, I have assembled
> all my comments in this message (a very long one, I'm afraid) and
> interspersed remarks (beginning with ++) on subsequent developments,
> in many cases stating that the matter is closed in my mind.
>
> As for what is left, I would like to get the important issues
> onto the issue list.  Here is my proposed additions to the
> issues list:
>
> 1. Material on entailment and general framework needs to be
> rewritten.  One objective of the rewrite is to extend the scope
> of blank node identifiers to include FILTER clause in
> rule [21] FilteredBasicGraphPattern.

I thought kendall was going to open a catch all entailment issue.  
This should go there.

> 2. Should we rearrange rule [14] SolutionModifier to place
> OffsetClause before LimitClause, given that the OffsetClause
> is processed first.

This is not a currently open issue. Seems straightforward.

> 3. Should items in the SELECT list be separated by commas.
> I have heard that this is part of an existing issue on punctuation
> which is being re-opened.

Seems part of issue:
	http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#punctuationSyntax

> 4. Duplicates from UNION: do we require a result sequence to
> have a precise count of duplicates, or is it more lax?

I wonder if this is related to DISTINCT or just to the entailment  
framework. In so far as the DISTINCT issue also contains the  
"ALL" (default) case, i think it can be handled there i.e., in:
	http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#formsOfDistinct

> 5. The domain of solutions is not clearly specified. This is
> particularly an issue for OPTIONAL and UNION.

New issue to me, but perhaps falls under the semantics one.

> 6. Formal semantics of OPTIONAL is not clear.  The current
> wording "if S is a pattern solution of A and of B otherwise
> if S is a solution to A but not to B" appears to reduce
> logically to just "S is a solution of A".  This issue is
> likely to be handled at the same time as the issue on the
> domain of solutions to OPTIONAL, though I'd like to list it as
> a separate issue.

I think we should evolve the poorly named "nestedOptionals" issue to  
cover this.
	http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#nestedOptionals

But then the issues list needs to break out the various sub-bits. we  
might call it "semantics of optional)

> 7. How does filter evaluation work if there is an unbound
> variable that is not within a BOUND function?

New to me.

> 8. There is no bridge from the syntax to the semantics.

I think this is in the enatilment one, but it's also a presentational  
matter.

[snip]

I have some replies/comments to/on Fred's detailed comments, but we  
should break them out.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 12 September 2006 11:47:03 GMT

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