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

Re: comments on section 12 (and a little more)

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 09:59:35 +0000
Message-ID: <4603A507.7060705@hp.com>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
CC: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>



Seaborne, Andy wrote:
...
> 
> (need to send email now because we have CVS merge problems).

After the CVS merge ...

> 
>> Defn of Evaluation of a Union Pattern. "join" is 
>> written in lower case. Should this be "Join" ?

Coirrected in "Graph Pattern"

>>
>> BTW, this would all be a lot easier to understand 
>> if you used some systematic way of distinguishing 
>> the evaluation function from the SPARQL algebra 
>> term, say by a font change or something? But its 
>> getting late, so never mind....

When I asked the WG is they preferred different names for each stage, or the 
same name, to show the equivalence, the response was for using the same name.

Stylistic devices are, err, "tricky" for portable HTML :-(

>>
>> ---------
>> 12.6
>>
>> "needless of inappropriate" -> "needless or inappropriate"
Done

>>
>> "... if and only if the triple (" ends a line, which is a pity.
>>
>> "consistent source document SD is uniquely 
>> specified and is E-equivalent to SD."
>> ->
>> "consistent active graph AG is uniquely specified and is E-equivalent to AG."
>>
>> "For any basic graph pattern BGP and pattern solution P"
>> ->
>> "For any basic graph pattern BGP and pattern solution mapping P"
>>
>> "and answer set {P1 ... Pn} " -> "and answer sequence <P1 ... Pn>"

BGP matching returns a multiset.  Only the solution modifiers work on sequences.

"Set" is fine - can talk about the set and cardinality function.  The 
extension framework does not need to restrict cardinality for a logical extension.


>>
>> "and where {BGP1 .... BGPn} is a set of basic 
>> graph patterns" -> "and where <BGP1 .... BGPn> is 
>> a sequence of basic graph patterns"

Ditto - "set" is right.

>>
>> "guarantee that every BGP and SD" -> "guarantee that every BGP and AG"

Done

>>
>> "(a) SG will often be graph equivalent to SD" -> 
>> "(a) SG will often be graph equivalent to AG"

Done

>>
>> "that SG share no blank nodes with SD or BGP. In 
>> particular, it allows SG to actually be SD."
>> ->
>> "that SG share no blank nodes with AG or BGP. In 
>> particular, it allows SG to actually be AG."

Done

>>
>> "graph-equivalent to SD but shares no blank nodes with SD or BGP"
>> ->
>> "graph-equivalent to AG but shares no blank nodes with AG or BGP"
>>

Done

Also, I searched the document for the word "SD" and now don't find it.
Ditto "scoping document"

>> -----------
>>
>> Phew.
>>
>> Pat

End of this pass over editorial changes in section 12.
I'll try to reword the Join cardinality part as well.  It's noted as @@.

Next "active graph"  ...

	Many thanks,
	Andy

-- 
Hewlett-Packard Limited
Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Friday, 23 March 2007 09:59:53 GMT

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