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

Re: [EDITORIAL] Preface of rq24

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:48:03 -0400
Message-Id: <CB15ADFC-DB4E-49F6-858E-A4E0DCDB7BAB@monkeyfist.com>
Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>


On Sep 19, 2006, at 3:06 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:

> After going through the wordings with Ivan, Ralph, DanC and Sandro,
> we came up with some new wording that are hopefully precise without
> requiring too much context.

The entire spec is the context; I fail to see how this is a  
reasonable desideratum. (So, we're going to ask for guidance from  
people who we don't expect to really understand the issues. Fine; as  
long as we don't blindly follow that advice.)

Let me once again renew my prediction that we'll get very little  
'guidance from the community' and that, at the end of the day, we'll  
still have to reach consensus on these issues ourselves.

Btw, did it just so happen that Ivan, Ralph, Dan and Sandro were  
around when this text was getting massaged, or was this an explicit  
choice to seek out editorial input from (what appears to be) the  
SWCG? I'm somewhat confused about that choice, since there's been  
good input on this text from *WG* members.

>> Agreed.
>
> We put a lot of thought into this one and arrived at
> [[
> Many of these issues revolve around, "Should SPARQL be sensitive to
> only the graph structure (per the 1st last call semantics) or the
> semantics of RDF graphs as well."
> ]]

I think putting it that way biases the case -- I'd strike the  
parenthetical -- and I don't agree, and I'm not sure there's  
consensus, that "many of these issues revolve around"...

> sees. Kendall, could this markup go into the issues list instead?

I suppose it could, yes.

>     * Should SELECTed variables be separated by commas?
>
>     * Should the keyword DISTINCT recognize logically equivilant
>       graphs?

I take Bijan's comments about this to be apt; but at the *very  
least*, can we spell 'equivalent' correctly?

> Many of these issues revolve around, "Should SPARQL be sensitive to
> only the graph structure (per the 1st last call semantics) or the
> semantics of RDF graphs as well." The working group could use guidance
> from the community on this point.

I'd strike the sentence starting "Many of these issues..." -- I don't  
believe there's consensus amongst the WG for that idea.

Cheers,
Kendall
Received on Tuesday, 19 September 2006 12:47:04 GMT

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