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

Re: sparql update review

From: Polleres, Axel <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2012 09:35:58 +0200
To: Carlos Buil Aranda <cbuilaranda@gmail.com>
CC: "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9DA51FFE5E84464082D7A089342DEEE801463B8E78E8@ATVIES9917WMSX.ww300.siemens.net>
Hi Carlos,

As we want to go for CR/PR vote, I discussed (a while ago) with Paul
whether we have addressed all your review comments from July and
now looked into this again.

Summary:

1) You review mentioned a couple of typos (fixed)

2) In the beginning of your review  you make some structural change suggestions

  "In the beginning I found it messy with starting with non informative sections[...]"

we as editors feel it would be too much change to address these at this stage, i.e. if we do
some major changes on the structure now, I am afraid, that we need more rounds of
review, which would potentially delay the further process.
So, I'd wanted to ask you, whether you'd be ok to leave the structure of the doc as it is?

3) Lastly, as for this one:

> Another thing I found a bit difficult to understand is the definition of
> QuadTriple and QuadData. QuadTriple is defined at the beginning of the
> document in the terminology section, but QuadData is defined in Section
> 3.1.1. I would add a comment to diferentiate them clearly (looking at the
> grammar have the same form).

I am not sure here, since I don't find "QuadTriple" in the doc, do you mean QuadPattern?
I addressed this now by adding the following bullet in the "1.1.2 Terminology" section which hopefully addresses
your concern, cf. http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/update-1.1/Overview.xml#terminology

  "* QuadData - A QuadPattern without variables. "

Further:
> I would also add the formal definition of
> QuadPattern to the formal model section.

We have links to the grammar wherever we use QuadPattern or QuadData,
I think that's sufficient and would prefer not to add more to the formal definitions part.

Please let us know whether your'e ok with those changes.

Thanks,
Axel
Received on Sunday, 9 September 2012 07:36:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:49 GMT