W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: Typos/editorial in <http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/rq25.html>

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 10:56:13 +0000
Message-ID: <45E55FCD.8000602@hp.com>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
CC: dawg mailing list <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

Bijan Parsia wrote:
> I hope this is the right one.
> I don't know if I'm going to be able to scare up a full review either  
> now or during LC (my crushedness continues...worse). And I afraid  
> I've not been monitoring anything, so some of this may be redundant.  
> If lucky, I may be able to get an "prototype implementation" based  
> review going in short time frame. For that, I would like to know  
> which bits are canonical and which can be ignored. My intuitions say  
> 11, 12, and appendix A. If that's right, please let me know.

We need to discuss this further but it is everything, although sec 2 and 3 are 
more descriptive. Depends what your implementing but at a minimum 4, 8, 9, 10, 
11, 12, A.  (For example, the grammar along does not tell you what the 
syntactic sugar expansions are, just what they look like hence sec 4)

> """12.1.5 Graph Pattern"""
> the definition has no links, though other definitions do have links.  
> Not sure what the policy is.

Do you mean the definition or the section although both seem to have a anchor 

> """"12.1.6 Solution Modifiers
> Definition: Graph Pattern
> A solution sequence modifier is one of:""""


> s/Definition: Graph Pattern/Definition: Solution Modifiers/
> Throughout 12:
> 	"comprised of" <-- I suspect the tide has turned on this but it's  
> still one of my pet peeves :) "comprised" means "is composed of".

The Guardian agrees with you.

"throughout 12" is an exaggeration though - it occurs twice in the intro and 
that's it.  Fixed throughout the doc.

> Ah yes:
> 	http://www.bartleby.com/61/72/C0537200.html
> "The traditional rule states that the whole comprises the parts and  
> the parts compose the whole. In strict usage: The Union comprises 50  
> states. Fifty states compose (or constitute or make up) the Union.  
> Even though careful writers often maintain this distinction, comprise  
> is increasingly used in place of compose, especially in the passive:  
> The Union is comprised of 50 states. Our surveys show that opposition  
> to this usage is abating. In the 1960s, 53 percent of the Usage Panel  
> found this usage unacceptable; in 1996, only 35 percent objected. See  
> Usage Note at include.""|
> But c'mon. "composed of" is better. "comprised" works. Pleeeeease?!
> """12.2.1 Mapping Graph Patterns
> The result of mapping a SPARQL query is a SPARQL abstract query that  
> uses theses symbols for graph patterns:"""
> I don't understand "that uses theses symbols for graph patterns".

An abstract query is composed of something.  Maybe "terms" is better than 

> Ok, taking too much time in digging into the translation. Sorry.
> ....
> For the record, I think 12.6 may be better off in an appendix or a WG  
> submission, but I'll send a separate message when i get a chance.


> Appendix B says nothing about the answers required by an evaluation  
> of a query against a dataset, which, to me, is a critical aspect of  
> conformance. Given some of the tricky things abounding, some guidance  
> here would be welcome.


> Shouldn't Appendix D be dropped? or <http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/ 
> DataAccess/rq23/sparql-defns.html> updated?

Yes - dropped.  They are all close enough together now.

	Thanks for the comments,

> Cheers,
> Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 28 February 2007 10:56:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:53 UTC