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

RE: Agenda 2009-06-16

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:48:44 +0000
To: 'RDF Data Access Working Group' <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B6CF1054FDC8B845BF93A6645D19BEA3646CFC6689@GVW1118EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>
> a) If we can find consensus, I would like to decide on publishing
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/features/ as FPWD.
> Particularly, if you CAN'T participate tomorrow and want to raise
> concerns, please send them, if any possible before the Teleconf.

What's the status on these comments I've extract below:
Key ones are:

  Non-mention of the time-permitting in F&R.[*]
  Negation is not syntax

For comments not going into the FPWD doc, could you indicate why, please.

	Andy

[*] "View source" does not count.


http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009AprJun/0346.html

----
2.2.2 but generally comment:

"""
That feature could be used, for instance, in the following use cases:
"""
Not sure "could be used" is helpful without spelling out how it would be done, but that gets into far too much detail. Maybe just stick to the basic point.  
---
2.3: Negation.

"Hence, a new syntax is desired."


The discussions so far have not been able just syntax.  The text implies to me that it is just syntax for writing OPTION/!BOUND.

The example of MINUS might be taken to imply that is the likely direction of the WG because it's the only example.

(mentioning SQL EXISTS has been done).

----
2.4.3:

"though that might be unparseable or something along the lines of"
Drifting into discussion?

--------
The reply was: Kjetil:
> Yeah, I don't like this myself. We should also have a review to ensure that we 
> only have existing implementations here, and it this sounds like speculation.


=================
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009AprJun/0346.html


------------------
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.

Reply: Alex:
> 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.

I still think should list them even if that means empty sections.  It's about being complete to the community (the inline link to FeatureProposal does not count).


---
== 2.4.2 Project expressions / Descriptions
"ex:substring"

Use and example from XQuery/XPath F&O (e.g. fn:substring and strings are zero-based) to indicate we will reuse where possible. 
------------------
== 2.4.3 Project expressions / Existing implementation

"""
This is also useful in CONSTRUCT:

 CONSTRUCT { ?x foaf:name (concat(?fn, " ", ?sn)) . }
 WHERE { ?x foaf:firstName ?fn ; foaf:family_name ?sn . }
"""
This is not a project expression!

Just keep the section clean and don't discuss CONSTRUCT.  Just need a direct discussion of project expressions.


=============
And new one:
CONSTRUCT { ?x foaf:name ?name }
 WHERE {
   (SELECT concat(?fn, " ", ?sn) AS ?name
    WHERE { foaf:firstName ?fn ; foaf:family_name ?sn . })
 }

Suggest change (SELECT ) to {SELECT } as two implementations already do that.

Received on Monday, 15 June 2009 16:50:03 GMT

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