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

Review of Query 1.1

From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2010 18:27:53 +0100
Message-ID: <492f2b0b1001020927s607495e5k471a248b42ffff75@mail.gmail.com>
To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Hi all,
it seems now that I've finished my review, all red tags are gone and
the layout is really nice. The document looks all in all very nice and
I have no objections to publication. Below are my (small) detailed
comments.
Birte

Status of this Document
...will change to full*ly* integrate ... eas*e* of review ...

1.1 Document Outline
...This section of the document, *S*ection 1, ...

In 1.2.3 it says that not all variables have to be bound, but in 2.2
it says that all variables must be bound in every solution. Maybe add
in 2.2 that since non of the variables occurs in an optional pattern,
they must be bound.
1.2.3 Result Descriptions
... Variables are not required to be bound in a solution.
but
2.2 Multiple Matches
...all the variables used in the query pattern must be bound in every solution.

2.3 Matching RDF Literals
... "cat"@en is an RDF literal with a lexical form "cat" and a language *tag* en
(language is used in the TURTLE grammar, but it is usually called a
language tag I think and the SPARQL spec also does so later on. )

5.2.1 Empty Group Pattern
The group pattern:
 }
should be *{* }

8.1 Negation Syntax
... The rules ExistsFunc and NotExistsFunc are the same
(syntactically) as rules ExistsPattern and NotExistsPattern...
ExistsPattern and NotExistsPattern  should probably be ExistsElt and
NotExistsElt.

8.3 Mapping from Abstract Syntax to Algebra
...
Example:
example should have courir font (<code> or <codeeg>)

SPARQL-WG Note: Alternative Design: MINUS
maybe better in an editor's note

9.1 after the example:
In aggregate queries and sub-queries only expressions which have been
used in GROUP BY, or aggregated expressions (i.e. expressions where
all variables appear inside an aggregate function). <- not a complete
sentence, add "can be used"

15.3.1
Definition: Pattern Instance Mapping
P(x) = μ(σ(x)) <- Can we make this more explicit in this spec? E.g.,
by saying "For x a BGP, P(x) denotes the result of replacing blank
nodes b in x for which sigma is defined with sigma(b) and all
variables v in x for which mu is defined with mu(v).

15.6
The sentence below should refer to OWL Direct and RDF-Based Semantics
entailment instead of OWL-DL entailment. OWL RDF-Based Semantics (aka
OWL Full) makes no restrictions on the input. Direct Semantics is only
defined for a subset of RDF graphs, namely those that satisfy the
restrictions for OWL DL ontologies. OWL DL is a syntactic restriction
and on those ontologies one can use Direct Semantics (or RDF-Based
Semantics).
"Examples of entailment regimes include simple entailment [RDF-MT],
RDF entailment [RDF-MT], RDFS entailment [RDF-MT], D-entailment
[RDF-MT] and OWL-DL entailment [OWL-Semantics]. Of these, only OWL-DL
entailment restricts the set of well-formed graphs. If E is an
entailment regime then we will refer to E-entailment, E-consistency,
etc, following this naming convention."
Maybe:
"Examples of entailment regimes include simple entailment [RDF-MT],
RDF entailment [RDF-MT], RDFS entailment [RDF-MT], D-entailment
[RDF-MT] and *OWL Direct and RDF-Based Semantics entailment* [*updated
link for OWL 2*]. Of these, only *OWL Direct Semantics entailment*
restricts the set of well-formed graphs. If E is an entailment regime
then we will refer to E-entailment, E-consistency, etc, following this
naming convention."



-- 
Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 306
Computing Laboratory
Parks Road
Oxford
OX1 3QD
United Kingdom
+44 (0)1865 283529
Received on Saturday, 2 January 2010 17:28:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:41 GMT