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

Re: Review of F&R doc

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:08:34 +0100
Message-ID: <4A40D3D2.3080604@deri.org>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
I tried to extend the comments from Steve a bit and came up with a small 
summary of open issues.

Let me try to progressively suggest the following towards making a 
decision about FPWD possible today:


PROPOSED: Publish http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/features/ after 
implementations of 1) - 8) as suggested in this mail.

Find the list 1)-8) below. If anybody thinks I forgot something, please 
speak up.

best,
Axel

=========================================================================

1) Shall the  Patent policy sentence be uncomments -> team contacts?
   cf. ACTION-47

    Suggestion: Adopt whatever the team contacts tell us to do.

2) Short name approved by team contacts?
    http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-06-16#resolution_2

    Suggestion: Adopt whatever the team contacts tell us to do.

3) Sections 2.1.3 and 2.4.3 miss a bullet  list of implementations, but 
should have, like 2.2.3 and 2.3.3, so I suggest the following simple 
solution:

  * For 2.2.3 I suggest to copy paste the list from
    http://esw.w3.org/topic/SPARQL/Extensions/Aggregates
    here as a start with one additional bullet
     -

  * For 2.4.3, I suggest to copy paste
http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:ProjectExpressions#Existing_Implementation.28s.29
    here as a start

4)
 > 2.3.1 Motivations
 >  >
 >  > Perhaps it should say something like "Negation by failure is possible
 >  > in many cases"? I'm not sure that anyone has shown that it can be done
 >  > in all cases.

I suggest to add:

"TODO: Add a reference to the general proof how Negation as failure can 
be done using OPTIONALs and FILTER, e.g.

Renzo Angles, Claudio Gutierrez: The Expressive Power of SPARQL. 
International Semantic Web Conference 2008: 114-129
"

5) From Steve:

 >  > 2.3.3 Existing implementation
 >  >
 >  > Missing closing parenthesis in ARQ description.

to be done.

6) From Steve:

 >  > 2.4: Project expressions
 >  >
 >  > More mention should be made of subqueries, as the two can be used
 >  > together to answer many usecases.

I suggest to add this as TODO for the moment:

"TODO: More mention should be made of the connection with subqueries, as 
the two can be used together to answer many usecases."

in the end of the description subsection.

7) From Steve:
 >  > 4.1.1 Motivations
 >  >
 >  > Should mention bNodes/roundtripping perhaps? There's no stable and
 >  > standard way to refer to exported bNodes once they leave the SPARQL
 >  > environment.

Likewise, add this sentence as TODO "as is" in the end of motivation section

8) From SteveH:

 >  > 4.2.3 Existing implementation
 >  >
 >  > Garlik's JXT supports HTTP PUT and DELETE.

suggestion:
  add this as single item in a bullet list in section 4.2.3
Received on Tuesday, 23 June 2009 13:09:11 GMT

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