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

RE: Responses for DB-26 and DB-27

From: Polleres, Axel <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 08:00:55 +0200
To: "pgearon@revelytix.com" <pgearon@revelytix.com>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9DA51FFE5E84464082D7A089342DEEE80141DC3172DB@ATVIES9917WMSX.ww300.siemens.net>
Hi Paul,

> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:DB-26

I have added some explaining text, restating the issue and detailing of what I understand a future WG could do here at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Future_Work_Items, apart from that, the response itself looks fine to me.

> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:DB-27

I am not 100% sure whether I understand the original comment (seems a "not" might be missing?) correctly. It might be the case that David is referring to "merge" in the sense of "RDF merge" (which is essentially what load does). While this is speculative and I am a bit hesitant to use "RDF merge" we anyways already have a clarifying sentence along these lines in the formal definition that you are already pointing at in section 4.3.4:

"where blank nodes present in the retrieved graph are supposed to be "standardized apart"; i.e., blank nodes from a loaded graph need to be disjoint with the blank nodes already present in the Graph Store"

If you find it worthwhile, you may make explicit reference to this sentence in the response, but otherwise I think it's fine.


Dr. Axel Polleres
Siemens AG Österreich
Corporate Technology Central Eastern Europe Research & Technologies

Tel.: +43 (0) 51707-36983
Mobile: +43 (0) 664 88550859
Fax: +43 (0) 51707-56682 mailto:axel.polleres@siemens.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Gearon [mailto:pgearon@revelytix.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012 5:21 PM
> To: SPARQL Working Group
> Subject: Responses for DB-26 and DB-27
> Hi,
> I have written responses for DB-26 and DB-27:
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:DB-26
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:DB-27
> I'll send them out once someone gets an opportunity to look over them.
> Neither are particularly large.
> Meanwhile, I have sent DB-5. This was languishing for some
> time while waiting for an extra comment, but it should be
> fine as no concerns were raised.
> Regards,
> Paul
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2012 06:01:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:07 UTC