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

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

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:59:13 +0100
Message-ID: <4506A111.5060101@hp.com>
To: Lee Feigenbaum <feigenbl@us.ibm.com>
CC: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
> 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.)

Confusing, rather than anything else.  CVS merge does not always save the day. 
  We've had enough CVS problems in the past, including text that got lost, 
because of CVS clashes.

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

Already done.

> + 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.*.

Maybe - the idea was to drop them as the reader gets used to the style and 
colour scheme.

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

Received on Tuesday, 12 September 2006 11:59:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:51 UTC