W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: [ENT] Editorial Review comments on the SPARQL 1.1. Entailment regime document

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 09:11:30 +0200
Cc: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>, W3C SPARQL WG <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <BE3943B4-CBAD-4CAC-8F99-D2912BEBEA79@w3.org>
To: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Wow, that was quick!

Comments only on few of your responses. For all other cases, thanks!

On May 13, 2010, at 05:34 , Birte Glimm wrote:

> Ivan,
> thanks a lot for your thorough review. I'll comment on the things that
> I fixed below. I haven't looked at the non-editorial suggestions in
> your other email. I'll try to do that tomorrow. There are two open RIF
> comments that I leave to Chime.
> Cheers,
> Birte

>> -----------
>> All the tables for entailment regimes: maybe it is because I am too old, but I find the small characters in the Query Answers fairly difficult to read. Is it really necessary to use small characters?
> The font size is determined by the style sheet that is shared among
> all documents I believe (query at least also uses it), so changing
> that would change all documents. The style file specifies the font to
> be 88%. Maybe we should get this changed in general, but I don't dare
> to do just like that. Currently the IRC channel is quite empty, but
> I'll ask that on IRC around the time of the next SPARQL teleconf.

I did not realize this is a common style sheet entry. You are right that this should be (if decided) changed with the others...

>> (Do I detect some German background here?:-)
> quite possible ;-)

I thought so... my rudimentary German made some constructions fairly familiar:-)

> done
>> I would also add, after the reference to condition 2, a paranthesis saying "(because the blank node _:c3 is shared by the scoping graph and the solution)"
> I extended the explanation because it is not just the fact the _:c3 is
> shared by SG and the solutions. The problem is rather the sharing of
> bnodes in different solutions which introduced an unintended
> co-reference since the bnode occurs in two solutions but in the
> queried graph the solutions do not involve the same bnode. This is
> what condition 3 in the query spec wants to exclude. I hope the
> paragraph is clearer now.

It is, except that you have two sentences starting with "Since BGP does not contain blank nodes,...". I guess the first of the two should be taken out.

>> -----------
>> Section 4.1 refers (twice) to XML Schema Datatypes, version 1.1. Is this necessary? What I mean is, isn't it enough, for the sake of this document, to refer to the current Recommendation, ie, version 1.0? Even if the reference is listed as non-normative, it may be a bit touchy to refer to a not-yet-finalized document. (It created an awkward delay in the OWL WG, and will probably do the same in the RIF WG.)
>> I would propose to refer to the stable document, ie,
>> XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes, W3C Recommendatation, May 2001, http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/
> I changed to:
> XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes Second Edition. W3C Recommendation 28 October 2004
> which seems to be the successor of the one you point to, but is also rec.

I am sorry, my mistake. Yes, that is the good reference to use.

Thanks again!


Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Thursday, 13 May 2010 07:11:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:00 UTC