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

Re: Graph store protocol editor's draft updated

From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@uni-ulm.de>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 20:47:39 +0100
Message-ID: <CABt65OdEUJf55jSd9iVH62HM6BVDidSHwsEKmACRNaFByFAUhw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chimezie Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Hi all, hi Chime,

I decided to review, interpreting Chime's email as completion of ACTION 582.

In general, the document reads well and I could pretty much follow
despite my limited background in this area. I include my comments
below.

Birte

Change summary: Does this really just describe the changes since last
pub? I had the impression that the title of the document changed quite
some time ago, but I didn't check this.

Sec.1: I didn't get the second sentence and how the enumeration items
are constraints.

Sec. 3: There is an extra space before the full stop of the second sentence.

Fig. 1&2: The figures are hard to read on a b/w printout since only
the yellow/orange colour is really different from the others. Although
most people will read on the screen, it might be helpful to use
dashed/dotted lines or more distinct colours even when printed b/w.
Fig.1 has a legend, but Fig. 2 does not. In general, I do not really
understand how to read the diagrams. It is difficult to see where to
start reading. I somehow expected something that illustrates the flow
of sending a GET request and how this leads to the identification of a
relevant set of triples/a graph, but somehow I can't see that in the
Figures.

In several places sentences start with "So, ...", which is not good
style (at least I learned that). For example, in the two paragraphs
following Fig. 2.

Paragraph before 5.1: to the manipulation af RDF graph content: s/af/of/
Sec. 5.1: involving a*n* RDF payload

Sec. 5.2.1: returned from dereferencing a*n* IRI (I think so)
Why does the paragraph end in a semicolon?

Sec. 5.3: "and using the with an IRI" does not make sense

Paragraph before 5.5: The response codes were usually set in
typewriter, but 202 (accepted) is not

Sec. 5.5: contains "Networked-manipulable Graph Store" although the
change summary said that this term is replaced with just "Graph Store"



On 6 February 2012 18:58, Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@uni-ulm.de> wrote:
> Hi Chime,
>
> I assume I can review the doc now, right?
>
> Birte
>
> On 3 February 2012 03:53, Chimezie Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Updates to GSP to address WG consensus regarding:
>>  - RFC 2119 language in informative sections
>>  - Removed Protocol service discovery section 5.8 (addressing issue of
>> confusion regarding SPARQL protocol URL and that of a GSP
>> implementation)
>>  - Changed URL used to for indirect identification to reflect that it
>> identifies a graph store (removed all references to 'service')
>>
>> -- Chime
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Jun. Prof. Dr. Birte Glimm            Tel.:    +49 731 50 24125
> Inst. of Artificial Intelligence         Secr:  +49 731 50 24258
> University of Ulm                         Fax:   +49 731 50 24188
> D-89069 Ulm                               birte.glimm@uni-ulm.de
> Germany



-- 
Jun. Prof. Dr. Birte Glimm            Tel.:    +49 731 50 24125
Inst. of Artificial Intelligence         Secr:  +49 731 50 24258
University of Ulm                         Fax:   +49 731 50 24188
D-89069 Ulm                               birte.glimm@uni-ulm.de
Germany
Received on Monday, 6 February 2012 19:51:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:47 GMT