- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 13:39:31 +0000
- To: reto.krummenacher@uibk.ac.at
- CC: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
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