Re: Minor editorial issues observed in WD-rdf-sparql-query-20051123 [OK?]

Reto Krummenacher wrote:
> Dear recepient
> 
> I observed some minor editorial things when reading the new SPARQL
> working draft. You might already have noticed them, but here they come
> anyway (there might be others that I did not see either):
> 
> - p.23 (sec. 10.3.3)
> 	example: the query outputs the people with the top
> 	2 sites, rated by hits. that would, from the data be
> 	alice(2349) and eve(181) and not bob(105). however the
> 	query results are ordered in ascending order by default
> 	and thus I would expect the outcome to be bob and eve.

Corrected - the bNodes labels were all the same leading to incorrect pattern 
matching.

> 
> - p.23 (sec. 10.3.3)
> 	if I remeber right the outcome of a query containing triples
> 	with anonymous identifiers does not contain the same anonymous
> 	identifiers of course. However I thought that two triples having
> 	the same identifier in the default graph would also have the
> 	same anonymous idenfier in the result set.
> 	this is not the case in the most hits example, as all three
> 	persons are associated with _:a, and the result set contains
> 	_:x and _:y.

(Note the data was corrupted)

The _:x and _:y arise from the [] in CONSTRUCT { [] foaf:name ?name }
not from the data and each template substitution generates new bNodes.


> 
> - p.27 (sec. 11.2.3.1)
> 	I assume that the first example should have the text: "This
> 	query finds the people with a dc:date property:", as the query
> 	contains FILTER bound(?date) and the result is correctly (IMO)
> 	set to "Bob".

Fixed text (by removing it).

> 
> - p.27 (end sec. 11.2.3.1)
> 	The conclusion to the second example seems to be missplaced!
> 	There is nowhere a triple with foaf:mbox in it.

Fixed.

> 
> - p.28 (sec. 11.2.3.3)
> 	The explanation to the example seems to be from 11.2.3.2

Changed to
"""
This query matches the people with a dc:creator which uses predicates from the 
FOAF vocabulary to express the name.
"""

> 
> - p.29 (sec. 11.2.3.4)
> 	"This query is similar to the one in 11.2.3.2..." (the link is
> 	correctly pointing)

Fixed - there has been some renumbering around here since the working draft.

> 
> - p.30 (sec. 11.2.3.7)
> 	In the query result, "bob" would be lower case.

Fixed (I fixed the data)

> 
> - p.31 (sec. 11.2.3.10)
> 	IMHO there should not be a match for this query, should there?
> 	Or is it correct that the dates of the query match the one of
> 	the sparql draft in the source graph?

The date in the data is "2004-12-31T19:00:00-05:00"
Timezone is -5 hours so is 00:00:00 the next day in UTC.

The query has "2005-01-01T00:00:00Z" which is UTC - that is, it is the same 
point in time, written differently.

The "=" is doing a value equality on two literals (xsd:dateTime is a datatype 
that a SPARQL processor should understand) and these two are the same value.

> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Reto
> 

Please let us know whether you're satisfied with this response.

If you're in a particularly helpful mood, you can put [closed] in the
subject line to save us a little bit of bookkeeping.

	Thanks for the corrections,
	Andy

Received on Friday, 16 December 2005 13:40:32 UTC