W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: Addressing Greg's update review - part 2... (Re: Review of SPARQL 1.1 Update)

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:53:07 +0100
Cc: "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <FF91F1A3-EBBE-42FF-ABD3-BC181661D5C4@deri.org>
To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>

On 26 Apr 2011, at 14:46, Gregory Williams wrote:

> On Apr 25, 2011, at 11:13 PM, Axel Polleres wrote:
> 
> > 16)
> >>> "Dataset(QuadPattern, μ ) = Dataset-UNION ( Dataset(QuadPattern1, μ ) , Dataset(QuadPattern2, μ ) )": The definition of Dataset-UNION in section 4.2.1 is defined as taking one graph store and one dataset as arguments, but here is used with two datasets.
> >
> > *Open: Hmmm, we also say that "i.e., the graph store can be viewed as a mutable RDF dataset" i.e. for the sake of these definitions, I don't really want to make a difference, to be honest, as I am afraid it would further complicate things. I was hoping this is clear enough. Do you consider this remark critical?
> 
> "Critical" might be a bit too far, but I think it's important to fix this, as the text as written conflicts with the earlier definition.

Any concrete re-wording suggestions by chance? Would changing the definitions for Dataset-UNION, -DIFF etc. as uniformly applying to pairs of Datasets, while saying that we mean by GS the "dataset implied by the currrent status of the Graph Store" do the trick?

Axel
 
> 
> thanks,
> .greg
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 26 April 2011 13:53:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:46 GMT