- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:02:33 -0500 (EST)
- To: connolly@w3.org
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> Subject: Re: comments on Section 1 and Section 2 of SPARQL Query Language for RDF [OK?] [needstest] Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:46:42 -0600 > On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 18:56 -0500, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > > > > > Comments on Section 1 and Section 2 of > > > > SPARQL Query Language for RDF > > W3C Working Draft 20 February 2006 > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20060220/ > > > > > > These are personal comments, from me, an interested expert. They may not > > reflect the views of any institution to which I am associated. > > Thank you very much for your detailed review... > > > > In general I found the first two sections of the document *very* hard to > > understand. The mixing of definitions, explanation, information, etc. confused > > me over and over again. I strongly suggest an organization something like: > > > > Introduction (informative) > > Formal development (normative) > > Underlying notions (normative) > > Patterns and matching (normative) > > SPARQL syntax (normative) > > Informal narrative (informative) > > Examples (informative) > > > > I also found that things that didn't need to be explained were explained, and > > things that did need to be explained were not explained. A major example of > > the latter is the role of the scoping graph. Examples showing why E-matching > > is defined the way it is would be particularly useful. > > > > > > Because of the problems I see in Section 2, I do not feel that I can adequately > > understand the remainder of the document. > > > > Because of these problems I do not feel that this document should be advanced > > to the next stage in the W3C recommendation process without going through > > another last-call stage. (This could however be performed by terminating the > > current last call, quickly fixing the document, and starting another last > > call.) > > After perhaps overly brief consideration of your comments, we are > somewhat sympathetic to your concerns about organization and > clarity; however, we also have schedule considerations > and the investment in other reviewers. Re-organizing the document > at this stage would delay things considerably; it's not even clear > that we could get a sufficient number of reviewers to take another > look before CR. > > The specific examples you give below are very valuable; I > am marking this thread [needstest], which allows us to find > it more easily during CR and integrate the examples you give > into our test suite. We have also discussed the possibility > of significant organizational changes after CR, such as > moving the formal definitions to the back of the document. > > As far as I can tell, all of the examples you give are useful > clarification questions, but they do not demonstrate design errors. > If they do, in fact, demonstrate design errors, I'm reasonably > confident we will discover that as we integrate them into > our test suite during CR. My view is that my message points out some deficiencies in the definitions underlying the design of BGP querying. I thus do not see how my message can possibly be characterised as not demonstrating design errors. > Are you, by chance, satisfied by this response, which does > not involve making the changes you request at this time, > but includes an offer to give them due consideration after > we request CR? If not, there's no need to reply; I'm marking > this comment down as outstanding dissent unless I hear otherwise. Yes, that is correct. I am formally dissenting from advancing to CR at this time. Peter F. Patel-Schneider Bell Labs Research
Received on Wednesday, 22 March 2006 19:02:48 UTC