[CLOSED] Re: [OK?] Re: Editorial comment on SPARQL Query Language Last Call

Thanks

Ivan

Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> Thank you for the comment on replacing blank nodes with '[]'s.
> Please check that the text in
>   <http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#syntaxMisc>
> provides an good recipe.
>
> If it does, you might try responding with [CLOSED] in the
> subject. I wonder if the issue tracking scripts will allow
> you to close it...
>
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 05:55:04PM +0200, Ivan Herman wrote:
>
>>Comment on http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20050419/
>>Category: Editorial (in fact: readability...)
>>
>>The section on Blank Nodes in section 2.8 (Other Syntactic Forms) says:
>>
>>
>>
>>> [ foaf:name  ?name ;
>>>    foaf:mbox  <alice@example.org> ]
>>>
>>>This is the same as writing the following basic graph pattern for
>>>some uniquely allocated blank node:
>>>
>>> _:b18  foaf:name  ?name .
>>> _:b18  foaf:mbox  <alice@example.org> .
>>
>>Which is fine, but nothing is said in the draft what means
>>
>> ex:a ex:b [ foaf:name  ?name ;
>>     foaf:mbox  <alice@example.org> ].
>>
>>ie, that this triplets is *replaced* by
>>
>> ex:a ex:b _:b18 .
>>
>>where _b:18 is the blank node described above.
>>
>>[Just saying that [ .... ] is mechanically replaced by those two lines above
>>would lead to:
>>
>> ex:a ex:b _:b18  foaf:name  ?name .
>> _:b18  foaf:mbox  <alice@example.org> .
>>
>>which is syntactically wrong.
>>
>>The same remark holds for the section on RDF Collections:
>>
>> ex:a ex:b (1 ?x 3) .
>>
>>should be explained that it is replaced by:
>>
>> ex:a ex:b _:b0 .
>>
>>where _:b0 is the blank node described in the section.
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>
>
>
>
>

--

Ivan Herman
W3C Communications Team, Head of Offices
C/o W3C Benelux Office at CWI, Kruislaan 413
1098SJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
tel: +31-20-5924163; mobile: +31-641044153;
URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/