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

Re: Review of Query 1.1

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 14:14:06 +0000
Message-ID: <4B41F7AE.9080405@talis.com>
To: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>


On 02/01/2010 5:27 PM, Birte Glimm wrote:
> 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 ...

Done.

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

It's not the start of a sentence.

> 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.

It says:
"""
This is a basic graph pattern match; all the variables used in the query 
pattern must be bound in every solution.
"""
In a BGP, all variables are bound so I think the text does make sense.

> 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. )

Changed (errata to Q/1.0)

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

Done. Conversion error of some kind.

> 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.

Done.  Using Elt aligns with the draft grammar as well.

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

I see monospace here (via div styling) - what is the problem?

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

It was a WG decision to put in the note.  Hence the red box.

> 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).

I've added this text just after the definition thinmking of it as 
"errata".  As the definition is not chnaging for SPARQL 1.1, I'm loath 
to change the definition box itself.

If you want to integrate it, then we ought to pull this topic out and 
get the WG to agree it as it is outside the new features.

>
> 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).

Ug - the whole of the reference section has been destroyed in the 
conversion to xmlspec.

> "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."

Changed but I left one mention of OWL-DL to help the reader.

	Andy

>
>
>
Received on Monday, 4 January 2010 14:14:39 GMT

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