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

Re: rq25 (1.18) review (part III)

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 16:39:52 -0500
Message-Id: <C29FC83C-641D-4507-8C04-7BD6005174B4@monkeyfist.com>
Cc: dawg mailing list <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: andy.seaborne@hp.com


On Mar 2, 2007, at 10:36 AM, Seaborne, Andy wrote:

> > What status does the talk of arranging provenance information,  
> say, in
> > the default graph have? That's *one* design pattern, but there are
> > others. It sounds like it should have some normative weight, and it
> > certainly does if anything else in the document has any.
>
> Other people have found examples useful, both at the level of this  
> section and as an overall observation/request that more examples  
> should be included.  We have to have a balance of needs.

Sure. Fine. I agree. But examples should be marked explicitly as non- 
normative at the very least. They should not be normative. That's my  
substantive point and I don't believe it's editorial.

> > And these seem contradictory: First, "There may be no named graphs;
> > there is always a default graph"; and, second, "A query does not  
> need
> > to involve the default graph..."
>
> The second is about the query; the first about the dataset.  The  
> second extract does say query - can you suggest better wording here?

You could say explicitly that the first wording is about the RDF  
dataset. I'm sure this is fine, it just needs to be more explicit.

> > 8.1 Examples of RDF Datasets
> >
> > This section should be struck entirely.

Since there's an entire section of examples, why have the exemplary  
stuff in the intro section? If you moved all the exemplary stuff  
here, you could mark it as non-normative, and declare victory! :>

> > 8.2 Specifying RDF Datasets
> >
> > "A query processor may use these IRIs in any way..." -- Which IRIs?

I don't know how to interpret this non-response...

> "clause" is used to indicate a part of the SPARQL language.  The  
> term is also used in the grammar itself.  Other suggestions welcome.

I don't have anything specific; in general I just had a hard time  
relating the grammar to the discussion of the grammar and the  
constructs; and part of my problem hereabouts was the vocabulary.  
Perhaps I'm the only person who had such interpretive difficulties.  
Wouldn't be the first time.

> > Sentence is confusing.
>
> I don't know how else to put this given the 'range' text above.

I would have suggested alternative wording if I'd understood the  
claim; I still don't, alas.

> > 9 Solution Sequence and Modifiers
> >
> > "Modifiers are applied in the order given by the list." -- What  
> list?
>
> The one above that sentence.

I think it would help if you referred to the list explicitly. I  
thought the doc might mean the list above the sentence, but it would  
be good to be more explicit. If for no other reason, I'm not sure how  
any accessiblity browser (for deaf or blind users, for example) might  
confuse this even more. I should think that in a browser for deaf  
people this would be *very* confusing.

> > FWIW, I've read several blog comments recently to the effect of "I
> > didn't know CONSTRUCT was in SPARQL" -- that it's tacked on at  
> the end
> > can't help by contribute to that fact.
>
> Could you provide links, please?

Can't find the one I was reading; must not be in technorati. At any  
rate, my point was to move that stuff closer to the front of the doc,  
which you agreed with (or seemed to), so it's moot.


> > Last sentence in that paragraph is a run-on.
>
> It refers to triples in the template that have no variables;  
> different from after substitution.

Different from after substitution? I can't parse that. Whatever the  
sentence is about, it's not properly punctuated.

Note here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run-on_sentence

It may actually be a comma splice, I don't recall. Either way, it  
should be fixed if not already.

> > What's a "knowledge base"? What's a "target knowledge base"?
> >
> > What's a "SPARQL query processor"? Is that different than the  
> "service"?

I don't know how to interpret the non-response to this. I can phrase  
it differently: strike 'knowledge base' or define it. Strike "SPARQL  
query processor" or define it.

> > Also, I object to CBD being referenced under the rubric of "other
> > possible mechanisms"... Either list others or drop this one. CBD  
> has no
> > special status or interest that I'm aware of. And it's been  
> criticized,
> > so it's not "the thing everyone does".
>
> It was a working group decision to put in an explicit mention (I  
> was not in favour).

Ah, okay. We agree on that, at least! :>

> > Finally, the sentence starting "Note that the SPARQL protocol
> > describes" should be struck. Any such commentary or note doesn't  
> belong
> > in the query language spec at all, IMO, and certainly not in the
> > section on conformance. It sticks out like a sore thumb.
> >
> > If there is interest in a statement like this in the protocol spec,
> > that should be handled in the normal process for the WG. In fact,  
> #4 in
> > the protocol conformance section already says that, so this  
> statement
> > is also redundant and further muddies the normative status of the  
> query
> > spec...

Is EricP going to reply to these bits?

> 	Thank you for all the comments, they have been a great help,

Happy to help.

Cheers,
Kendall
Received on Monday, 5 March 2007 21:40:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:36 GMT