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

Re: Graph store protocol editor's draft updated

From: Chimezie Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 02:27:57 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKSO3untrZbXr+BiutT=2GQUOBzpBPQuj_xD2Pp1T8yrj3P=vg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@uni-ulm.de>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Thanks for the review, I have incorporated changes from these
suggestions (along with changes to the abstract from Sandro from later
in this thread).  See below.

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@uni-ulm.de> wrote:
> 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.

This has been updated to better reflect recent changes since earlier
publication.

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

I have added a clarifying sentence after the list to better describe
how they are constraints and how they are met.

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

Fixed

> 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.

Figure 2 is meant to use the same legend as in figure 1.  I have added
this to the label of Fig. 2.

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.

I have added a short clarifying sentence for both figures:  "Requests
to an implementation of this protocol receive HTTP requests using one
of the HTTP methods that is directed at some RDF graph content.  Above
the arrows indicating the request is the relevant HTTP methods and
below is any message body content or additional headers that accompany
the request.  At the head of the arrows leaving RDF graph content is
the message body for the corresponding response"

> 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.

I have replaced all sentences that begin this way.

> Paragraph before 5.1: to the manipulation af RDF graph content: s/af/of/

Changed

> Sec. 5.1: involving a*n* RDF payload

Changed

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

Both changed.

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

Changed to "is empty and there is sufficient authorization to create a
new named graph using the IRI used in the request IRI"

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

Changed

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

Fixed.

-- Chime
Received on Tuesday, 28 February 2012 07:28:46 GMT

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