- From: Reto Krummenacher <reto.krummenacher@deri.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 17:55:55 +0100
- To: andy.seaborne@hp.com, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Seaborne, Andy wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 05:40:55PM +0100, Reto Krummenacher wrote: >> >> Dear editors, >> >> I have another set of minor comments on the SPARQL Query Language for RDF >> working draft. Most of them are solely of editorial matter: >> >> * first paragraph section 2: Combining tripleS gives a basic graph... > > "Combining triple" => "Combining triple patterns" > >> >> * I would suggest to exchange 2.1.7 and 2.1.6. In my opinion >> the query syntax is based on the data format used and not vice versa. > > The previous sections (2.1.1-2.1.5) are about query syntax so it seem > natural to conclude query syntax. Also, the data syntax is just for > this document so downplaying seems appropriate. > >> >> * 2.9 should probably start with "RDF defines A reification > vocabulary..." > > It reads right as it is to me, it does read as saying it is the only > vocabulary. But as it has caused confusion to you, I have changed it. > >> >> * 5.4 should probably say "...; or it passes all solutions without > adding any >> additional bindings." The 'any solutions' seems wrong to me. > > Matching is defined per-solution so I changed it to: "the solution". > >> >> * Still 5.4 end: should OPTIONAL not be capitalized in the syntactic > form example. > > Yes - fixed. > >> >> * 5.5 the second sentence of paragraph one is very confusing to read. > Doesnt it >> say exactly the same as the next sentence: "The outer optional graph >> pattern..."? Could it may be make sense to mention that this basically > means >> that all varialbes in the outer graph patterns have to be bounded, > doesnt it? > > Deleted that sentence. > >> >> * End 5.5: the conclusion of the example is that the optional part is > only >> reached if there is a vcard:N predicate. Shouldnt it not also include > a matching >> vcard:Given predicate, as it ?vc vcard:Given ?gname is also part of > the outer >> graph pattern? > > Changed to: > """ > By nesting the optional pattern involving vcard:Family, the query only > matches these if there are appropriate vcard:N and vcard:Given triples > in the data. > "" > >> Small wording question: "the query only reaches these..." should IMHO be >> "...reaches this...", as it refers to the optional graph pattern. > > used "matches" > >> >> * Could it make sense to mention in 10.1.1 that projection is > basically the >> sequence modifier applied in all SELECT queries presented so far in the >> document. Projection is basically the default modifier of SELECT, isnt > it? > > In 10.2 (SELECT) is does tie SELECT queries to projection. > >> * In 10.4.3 first sentence you mention that the output of DESCRIBE >> is determined by the information publisher. Who or what is the >> information provider? Is it the query service that provides the > information > to a user or rather the entity that actually published the > information. >> If I publish my foaf file and it is accessed over a SPARQL interface >> I would expect that I am the publisher, however in my >> opinion it is not clear how I could influence the DESCRIBE output >> besides using the same blank node as subject of related >> statements (cf. CBD) > > The "information provider" is a term to express the whole collection of > issues that go along with the provision and deployment of a SPARQL > service. It may well be that the people providing the data are > different from the people running the service platform and they'll need > to work together to get the service running but from the client's point > of view it's what is avilable at the interface that matters. Your > example of your foaf file is a good one from the point of view of you > making your foaf file available - it would take you and the service > platform to do that. > >> * In 11: is there a reason why xsd:dateTime is in another font than > the other >> datatypes? > > No. This has been fixed. Thank you. > >> * In the listing of 11.2 there is twice a redundant "will return" for > logical or >> and logical and > > Also fixed. > >> * in 11.3 for example XPath is written as xpath. > > Also fixed. > >> i also observed that > sometimes >> cannot is written in two words. > > Both are, I believe, acceptable, but I have changed > [[ > complete structures can not be assumed in all RDF graphs > ]] > to > [[ > complete structures cannot be assumed in all RDF graphs > ]] > >> >> Thank you very much for reading, I hope it helps a bit to finalize the > working >> draft. > > Indeed it does. Thank you kindly for your assistance. > > Please respond indicating whether you are or are not satisfied with > this response. If you are, you can help our issue tracking system by > prefixing the subject of your response with [CLOSED] (where this > subject has [OK?]). > -- > Andy -- dipl.ing.EPFL Reto Krummenacher, Project Assistant Digital Enterprise Research Institute (DERI) University of Innsbruck Phone: +43 (0)512 507 6452 Fax: +43 (0)512 507 9872 reto.krummenacher@deri.org http://members.deri.at/~retok
Received on Tuesday, 14 March 2006 16:56:18 UTC