Re: SPARQL: Another dditorial comment on SPARQL Last Call WD

Andy,

absolutely, I think that is now clear for the reader.

Thank you

Ivan

Seaborne, Andy wrote:
>
>
> Ivan Herman wrote:
>
>> Some hair splitting again on the editorial side.
>>
>> In 2.8, RDF Collection, it simply says that (1 ?x 3) is an alternative
>> for
>>
>> _:b0  rdf:first  1 .
>> _:b0  rdf:rest   _:b1 .
>> _:b1  rdf:first  ?x .
>> _:b1  rdf:rest   _:b2 .
>> _:b2  rdf:first  3 .
>> _:b2  rdf:rest   rdf:nil .
>>
>> It may be worth adding (or reformulating the text) that a triple pattern:
>>
>> :a :b (1 ?x 3).
>>
>> is then *replaced* by the triple:
>>
>> :a :b _:b0.
>>
>> where _:b0 is the one above (ie, the (1 ?x 3) is not mechanically
>> replaced by
>> the stuff above, it would be syntactically incorrect because it would
>> lead to a
>> duplicated full stop...).
>>
>> It may be obvious but I think it is worth making it clear.
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>>
>
> Ivan,
>
> Afetr changes based on your previous comments, the "RDF Collections"
> section says that
>
>   (1 ?x 3) :p "w" .
>
> is short for:
>
>   _:b0  :p  "w" .
>   _:b0  rdf:first  1 .
>   _:b0  rdf:rest   _:b1 .
>   _:b1  rdf:first  ?x .
>   _:b1  rdf:rest   _:b2 .
>   _:b2  rdf:first  3 .
>   _:b2  rdf:rest   rdf:nil .
>
> to avoid saying that the list is replaced by the triples (which would
> indeed be syntactically wrong).  It's not so much that any triple is
> *replaced* (the triples really are there) - it's about how they are
> written down.
>
> Does "is short for" meet your comment?
>
>     Andy
>
>

--

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/