W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2012

RE: Editorial remarks on the definition of in-scope (ACTION-618 - part 2)

From: Polleres, Axel <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 11:23:06 +0200
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9DA51FFE5E84464082D7A089342DEEE80139B1052DA1@ATVIES9917WMSX.ww300.siemens.net>
> > 3) In the definition table in Section 18.2.1 "
> > Group { P1 P2 ... }
> >      v is in-scope if it is in-scope in one or more of P1, P2, ...
> > "
> >
> > I think it is sufficient (and more consistent with the other 
> > definitions) to write
> >
> > "
> > SELECT * { P }
> > Group { P1 P2 ... }
> >      v is in-scope in one or more of P1, P2, ...
> > "
> 
> Not done - adding the SELECT stresses the "SELECT *" query level form and it's any group however nested (and it may be ASK etc)

Sorry, the "SELECT * {P}" was a copy-past error I guess, meant mainly changing the text in the second column, i.e.
s/if it is in-scope//
(because otherwise we'd need to write for UNION, etc. also "if it is in scope in" to be consistent in wording)
 
So, how about the following: 

----------------------
{ P1 P2 ... }
      v is in-scope in one or more of P1, P2, ...
----------------------

Or, if you prefer to leave the word "Group"

----------------------
Group { P1 P2 ... }
      v is in-scope in one or more of P1, P2, ...
----------------------

All other changes look fine to me!

Thanks for the quick fixing,
Axel

P.s.:
> which are your definitions ... :-)

;-) happy to take the blame, as long as 
I am allowed to improve my own wording 
reading it again from some distance ;-)


-- 
Dr. Axel Polleres 
Siemens AG Österreich 
Corporate Technology Central Eastern Europe Research & Technologies 
CT T CEE 
 
Tel.: +43 (0) 51707-36983 
Mobile: +43 (0) 664 88550859
Fax: +43 (0) 51707-56682 mailto:axel.polleres@siemens.com 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Seaborne [mailto:andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, 23 May 2012 10:58 AM
> To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Editorial remarks on the definition of in-scope 
> (ACTION-618 - part 2)
> 
> 
> 
> On 23/05/12 08:32, Polleres, Axel wrote:
> > Some more small editorial remarks on the definition table 
> for in-scope 
> > 
> variables(http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#variab
> > leScope)
> 
> which are your definitions ... :-)
> 
> >
> > 1) In the definition table in Section 18.2.1
> >
> > "
> > (expr AS v) for BIND, SELECT and GROUP BY
> >         v is in-scope
> > "
> >
> > For clarification, I would prefer to split this into 3 rows 
> in the table as follows:
> >
> >
> > "
> > BIND (expr AS v)
> >        v is in-scope
> >
> > SELECT .. (expr AS v)  .. { P }
> >        v is in-scope
> >
> > SELECT .. { P }  GROUP BY (expr AS v)
> >        v is in-scope (due to the equivalence with  SELECT 
> .. { P }  { 
> > ... BIND (expr AS v) } GROUP BY v) ) "
> 
> Done.
> 
> >
> > 2) In the definition table in Section 18.2.1
> >
> > "
> > SELECT .. v .. { P }
> >        v is in-scope if v is mentioned as a project variable "
> >
> > I think it is sufficient to write
> > "
> > SELECT .. v .. { P }
> >        v is in-scope
> > "
> >
> 
> Done
> 
> > 3) In the definition table in Section 18.2.1 "
> > Group { P1 P2 ... }
> >      v is in-scope if it is in-scope in one or more of P1, P2, ...
> > "
> >
> > I think it is sufficient (and more consistent with the other 
> > definitions) to write
> >
> > "
> > SELECT * { P }
> > Group { P1 P2 ... }
> >      v is in-scope in one or more of P1, P2, ...
> > "
> 
> Not done - adding the SELECT stresses the "SELECT *" query 
> level form and it's any group however nested (and it may be ASK etc)
> 
> How about just
> 
> { P1 P2 ... }
> 
> or leave as-is.
> 
> (the "group" was added to emphasis which use of {} we are 
> talking about but it is valid without and it works in the 
> same in OPTIONAL{} so reading it as an exclusive or inclusive 
> list gets the same meaning)
> 
> > 4) I'd suggest to add links to #variableScope for *all* 
> appearances of the word "in-scope", for instance in section
> >     18.2.5.1 ORDER BY
> >
> > s/
> > where vars is the set of variables mentioned in the SELECT  
> clause or all named variables that are in-scope in the query 
> if SELECT * used.
> > /
> > where vars is the set of variables mentioned in the SELECT 
> clause or all named variables that are<a 
> href="#variableScope">in-scope</a>  in the query if SELECT * used.
> > /
> >
> > Similarly,
> >   in section 18.2.5.2 Projection
> > and
> >   in section 10 Assignment	
> >
> 
> Done where it makes sense.  There are only a couple of places.
> 
> Uses in the section #variableScope are not linked to the 
> section because it that looks strange to me.
> 
> One use is a different "in-scope" is about FILTERs - made it 
> "in scope".
> 
> >
> > 5) Finally, in Section 18.2.1 I suggest to put the word 
> "in-scope" in italic font, where it is defined, i.e.
> >
> > s/
> > We define a variable to be in-scope if there is a way [...] / We 
> > define a variable to be<i>in-scope</i>  if there is a way [...]
> 
> Done.
> 
> >
> >
> >
> > Best,
> > Axel
> >
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2012 09:23:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:48 GMT