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

Re: rq25 (1.18) review (part II)

From: Lee Feigenbaum <feigenbl@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 17:28:47 -0500
To: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>, dawg mailing list <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFAB36214C.AC825D71-ON85257296.0078F9D2-85257296.007B7C0A@us.ibm.com>

Continuing to follow-up on Kendall's review notes:

Kendall Clark wrote on 03/05/2007 04:14:35 PM:

> > Addressing editorial comments in this pass up from start sec 5 to 
> > end section 7.
> Again, thanks for the detailed responses.
> 
> > >
> > > 5 Graph Patterns
> > >
> > > "SPARQL is based around graph pattern matching." -- this is the 
> > 3rd or
> > > 4th similar sentence, spread across the doc, and each one is 
> > *slightly*
> > > different. Is there some significance to the differences?
> > > Is it really necessary to keep repeating the point? I think that
> > > confuses spec readers. It confuses me, anyway.
> 
> Should I interpret no response as you don't agree, editorially, and 
> that there won't be any changes?

I looked through the document for instances of "matching". In most cases 
the terminology consistently uses "pattern matching" or "graph pattern 
matching". I changed one instance of "query matching" to "pattern 
matching" in Section 12. I found a few other instances of the form "this 
query matches" (as in "this query matches the people with a 
<code>dc:creator</code> which...") which I do not believe confuse the 
matter.

There is no significance to the difference between "pattern matching" and 
"graph pattern matching". If there is a specific editorial construct which 
confuses you, please let me know.

> > > 5.1 Basic Graph Patterns
> > >
> > > "SPARQL pattern matching is defined in terms matching basic graph
> > > patterns..." -- "of" missing? Also, what kind of "SPARQL pattern
> > > matching"? Triple? Graph? And where is this defined precisely? 
> > Can we
> > > get a link? A pointer or reference?
> 
> Same here as above. At least the missing "of" should be added.

The "of" has been added. I changed "SPARQL pattern matching" to "SPARQL 
graph pattern matching". I did not add a link as the introduction to graph 
patterns occurs immediately preceding this text.

> > > "Filters can be mixed into...but do not cause the end of a basic 
> > graph
> > > pattern." -- what is the "end"
> > > of a basic graph pattern?
> 
> ??

Changed to: "A sequence of triple patterns interrupted by a filter 
comprises a single basic graph pattern."

> > > This section refers to a "syntax error" -- which one? How's it 
> > spelled?
> > > Is this a generic syntax error or a specific one? Confusing.
> >
> > Errors are in the protocol so I've changed the text to be just "A 
> > label can be used in only a single basic graph pattern in any query."
> 
> Which one, though? You keep saying "they're in the protocol" -- if 
> so, why not say *which* error in the protocol spec would be used for 
> *this* case? And for all the other cases? Leaving the reader to go 
> and look, when there could be a hyperlink, seems less than ideally 
> useful.

@@Eric@@ As in my previous message, I've asked Eric to look at warnings 
and errors in the document.

> > > "In a SPARQL query string..." -- what's this? I think it's the first
> > > use of this wording. It's different than other wordings, so I'm 
> > left to
> > > do the boring, tedious interpretive work of trying to decide if 
> > it's a
> > > new construct or "informal" language. Can't we just stick to the 
> > same
> > > terms?
> >
> > Are you suggesting using "SPARQL query" at this point?
> 
> No. I was simply asking what the difference is between a "SPARQL 
> Query string" and a "SPARQL query" is -- the spec (IIRC) uses them 
> sorta interchangeably, which I find distracting.

"SPARQL query string" is used throughout much of the document and is 
formally defined in Section A.1. I feel that "query string" is a 
sufficiently common term of art that its use interchangeably with "SPARQL 
query" is clear. I've not made any change here.
 
> > > Third sentence: run-on.
> 
> Did this one get fixed?

Changed to:

"""
The same solutions would be obtained from a query that grouped the triple 
patterns
        into two separate basic graph patterns. For example, the query 
below has a different
        structure but would yield the same solutions as the previous 
query:
"""

> > FILTER is a keyword in the grammar.  Ideally, I'd like to include a 
> > list of keywords but they are available by a scan of the grammar.
> 
> +1

This may happen between Last Call and CR, depending on schedule 
requirements. 

> > I propose we delete this (6.4) section.
> 
> +1

The section has been removed.

> > I think it's worth distinguishing between the syntax and the 
> > abstraction of a  query.  Being the syntax for something and bing 
> > that thing are different. Keywords are syntax and don't partake of 
> > the abstract concept formed.
> 
> I agree that there is a distinction here; I don't believe that the 
> distinction is made explicitly enough.

In the example in question, you asked for:

"The UNION keyword is the syntax for pattern alternatives."

to be changed to:

"Pattern alternatives are created with UNION" or something similar.

I believe that Andy's response intended to convey that the more awkward 
wording of the current text is purposefully to emphasize the distinction 
between the query syntax (which contains the UNION keyword) and the query 
abstraction of union.

I've changed this text to:

"Pattern alternatives are syntactically specified with the UNION keyword."

which I hope is both less awkward and conveys the intended meaning.

Lee

> Cheers,
> Kendall
> 
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2007 22:29:06 GMT

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