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

RE: Review of F&R doc

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:15:01 +0000
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B6CF1054FDC8B845BF93A6645D19BEA3646D21517E@GVW1118EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-dawg-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Axel Polleres
> Sent: 23 June 2009 14:09
> To: Axel Polleres; public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Review of F&R doc
> 
> 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


http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:AggregateFunctions#Existing_Implementation.28s.29


>     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_Imp

> lementation.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
> "

I don't see the point of this - we are not writing a definitive academic paper (I don't see the point of speculating on completeness at all - the issue from users is about usability). 

	Andy


> 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 13:16:11 GMT

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