W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2009

RE: Some comments on F&R (2)

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 10:59:42 +0000
To: "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B6CF1054FDC8B845BF93A6645D19BEA3646C65D35D@GVW1118EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexandre Passant [mailto:alexandre.passant@deri.org]
> Sent: 10 June 2009 11:17
> To: Seaborne, Andy
> Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Some comments on F&R (2)
> 


> > Will the time-permitting features at least be mentioned?  Especially
> > SPARQL/OWL.
> > They don't need as much justification (IMO) - indeed for this
> > publication, just placeholder structure is enough but something
> > should go in.
> 
> We've commented them from the TOC / Structure as we didn't have time
> to properly define it for the FPWD.
> Yet, I just added the list of complete features in the introduction,
> which lists all of them.

Any way to achieve the effect of the TOC being a clean overview is fine.  The expanding way is quite nice for printing as well.

> 
> >
> >
> > ------------------
> >
> >
> > Structure:
> > Currently it is:
> > ----
> > #  4 SPARQL/Update 1.0
> >
> >    * 4.1 Update
> >
> > # 5 Protocol Enhancements
> >
> >    * 5.1 HTTP graph update
> > ----
> >
> > I prefer putting protocol under update to be clear it is in support
> > of update.  "Enhancement" suggests tweaks to the query protocol to
> > me but we wish to leave the design space open and avoid prejudging
> > naming issues.
> >
> > Also, the new protocol is there to support update so make that
> > explicit.
> >
> > Suggested structure:
> >
> > 4 SPARQL/Update 1.0
> >
> >    * 4.1 Update Language
> >        ...
> >    * 4.2 Protocol Enhancements
> >        ...
> 
> Are we sure that no other feature will imply some protocol
> enhancements ?
> (esp. wrt Service Description and using GET or some HTTP Options as
> raised during yesterday's call)

I wasn't implying that there could be no other protocol work.  But a major piece of work is protocol for update so let's make sure that update says that.  The FeatureProposal does not have a top level item of protocol.

> 
> Fixed, I added WHERE keywords, is that compliant with the ARQ syntax ?

WHERE is optional.

(I tend to use with CONSTRUCT to separate the patterns and not in SELECT - just my personal style).

I have had reviewer comments that I can't write SPARQL queries because I missed WHERE for space reasons!

> 
> >
> > ----
> > ------------------
> > """The type of subqueries has not yet been decided by the WG (see
> > issues below)."""
> >
> > 'type' is tricky word as it means so many things.
> > "Query form" is SPARQL terminology.
> Fixed
> 
> >
> > It just drop the sentenance - does not add anything IMO.
> 
> Won't that sentence be needed from a charter perspective ?

Not that I can see it as needed - it does not say anything concrete only no decision have been made (which is true in all areas) .  Removing does not rule out any query form as a subquery.

	Andy
 
> --
> Alexandre Passant
> Digital Enterprise Research Institute
> National University of Ireland, Galway
> :me owl:sameAs <http://apassant.net/alex> .

Received on Wednesday, 10 June 2009 11:01:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:39 GMT