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?

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:04 UTC