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: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 13:42:11 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTil4jmw1Id8ns1Lk9MESiSiy2XW7__gVz2rbGvIJ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>, W3C SPARQL WG <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 13 May 2010 03:11, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> Wow, that was quick!

It costed me half my sleep ;-) but I'll be offline from today evening
(Canadian time) until Sunday late night and I wanted to get the
comments in soon.

[snip]

>>> 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.

I rephrased that now. I'll work on some of the non-editorial comments
before I do the next CVS commit, but latest this evening (canadian
time) this change should be online.

Thanks again for your very helpful comments,
Birte
Received on Thursday, 13 May 2010 20:18:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:42 GMT