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

Re: Review BIND/VALUES

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:51:32 +0100
Message-ID: <4FFD5AB4.70309@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org


On 11/07/12 10:31, Olivier Corby wrote:
> I have reviewed bind/values (action 660), I have found some typos and I
> make some simple suggestions :
>
> Olivier

Many thanks, changes made as noted below.

	Andy

>
>
>
>
> 10 Assignment
>
> "but equery"
> ->
> but the query

Done

> "Use of BIND ends any preceeding basic graph pattern"
>
> The use of verb "ends" here is not clear for me.

It means that

?x ?p ?z .
BIND (?z+1 AS ?z1)
?x1 ?p1 ?z1 .

is two BGPs (unlike a FILTER).

I'm not sure how better to put it - suggestions welcome.

> "and the variable introduced by the BIND clause must not have been used
> in the basic graph pattern."
> ->
> and the variable introduced by the BIND clause must not have been used
> previously in the basic graph pattern.
>
> -- suggest to add "previously"

[[
  and the variable introduced by
the <code>BIND</code> clause must not have been used in the immediate 
preceding basic graph pattern or property path expression.
]]

and s/preceed/preced/g

> 10.2.2 VALUES Examples
>
> subqery
> ->
> subquery

Done

>
> "If a variable has no value for a particular query solution in the
> VALUES clause"
> ->
> If a variable has no value for a particular solution in the VALUES clause
>
> -- suggest to remove "query" from "query solution"

Done

> "In this example, the VALUES might have been specificed to execute over
> the results of the rest of the SELECT query:"
> ->
> In this example, the VALUES might have been specificed to execute over
> the results of the SELECT query:
>
> -- suggest to remove "of the rest"

Done

> 18.2.2.6 Translate BIND assignments
>
> variuable
> ->
> variable

Done

> "BIND elements act to add in a variuable binding to the matching from
> the immediately basic graph pattern "
> ->
> I suppose it is: "immediately preceeding"

Done - "preceding"

> "The grammar requires that the variable not be used in the TriplesBlock."
> ->
> The grammar requires that the variable not be used previously in the
> TriplesBlock
>
> -- suggest to add "previously"

"imediately preceding"

> (By the way, it is not the grammar that requires, it is the semantics.)

It is since I added a grammar note to that effect :-)

The point is that it is a statically testable feature from looking at 
the abstract syntax tree and nothing more.  There are others - like use 
of non-group key variables in SELECT outside aggregates.

I tend to think of semantic restrictions as not statically testable.

> Example: Pattern involving BIND:
>
>            "Join(
>              BGP(?s :p ?v), ?v2, 2*?v) ,
>               Extend({}, ?v2, 2*?v)
>                )"
>
> ->
>           Join(
>              BGP(?s :p ?v),
>              Extend({}, ?v2, 2*?v)
>                )

Done

>   Definition: Extend
>
>   There is an extra space  before:
>
>   " Extend is undefined when var in dom(μ)."
>

Done.
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2012 10:52:01 GMT

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