- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 10:06:18 -0400
- To: Lee Feigenbaum <feigenbl@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 09:29:59AM -0400, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > Looking over the XML schema referenced in the May 27 working > draft of the protocol specification, I had a couple of (very) small > comments: Hi Lee, thanks for the comments. Responses interspersed: > 1) The text of the specification indicates that an RDF Dataset > must contain one default graph, whereas the rdf-dataset element > (and accompanying inline documentation) makes the default > graph optional. I *think* the latter is intended to be the case, in > which case the text should be updated to reflect this. Ah, yes, good catch. These cardinality constraints are still up in the air, but this is a straight bug. > 1b) In answer to the parenthetical question "can there be zero > datasets?", I'd guess that at this point in time the answer to > this question is "yes", given the decision to allow graphs to > be specified either as datasets in the protocol or via FROM > and FROM NAMED in the query itself? Yes, indeed. > 2) Unless I'm mistaken, I believe that the minOccurs="0" on the > vbr:sparql and rdf:RDF elements within the choice group of the > query-result element mean that it is valid for a query response to have > an empty query-result element. Is this purposeful? It doesn't seem to > fit with the text of the specification ("either one or the other of two > further elements"), and I'm not sure what it would mean semantically, > either. Hmm, this is also just a straight bug. Thanks a lot Lee. Kendall Clark
Received on Monday, 6 June 2005 14:07:54 UTC