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

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

----
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