Late, but possibly useful, comments on SPARQL Last Call WD


I offer my apologies for failing to submit comments on the most recent 
SPARQL Last Call Working Draft [1] by the stated deadline.  I hereby submit 
these mostly editorial comments in the hope that they may be useful even 
though late.  I emphasize that these comments are my personal comments and 
do not necessarily reflect the opinions of my employer (Oracle) or the 
Working Group that I co-chair (XML Query WG).

1) In section 1, Introduction, second paragraph, the first bullet currently 

   * extract information in the form of URIs, blank nodes, plain and typed 

I believe that the word "and" should be inserted immediate prior to the 
word "plain"; otherwise, one might be misled into thinking that one could 
"extract information in the form of plain".

2) In section 2.1.2, Syntax for Literals, I note that "an optional language 
tag (introduced by @)" is part of the syntax.  Am I the first person to 
observe that XPath users may be discomfited by this convention, since the 
"@" is used in that language as a shorthand notation to indicate an XML 
attribute?  Surely there is another character or character sequence that 
would not intrude on that XPath convention.

3) In section 2.1.3, Syntax for Variables, I read: ' is the same 
variable everywhere in the query that the same name is used. Variables are 
indicated by "?"; the "?" does not form part of the variable.'  There are 
two things wrong with that text.  First, the phrase "it is the same 
variable everywhere..." is awkward; I would suggest rephrasing that along 
the lines of 'everywhere in a query that a given variable name is used, 
that name identifies the same variable'.  Second, the phrase 'the "?" does 
not form part of the variable' is a non-sequitor; I doubt that anybody 
would think otherwise.  I believe that you meant to say 'the "?" does not 
form part of the variable name'.

4) In section 2.2, Initial Definitions, the fifth paragraph claims "Note 
that all IRIs are absolute."  This is in direct conflict with the 
subheading in section 2.1.1, Syntax for IRIs, "Relative IRIs", and the text 
that follows that subheading.  While I have no reason to dispute the 
statement in section 2.2, the discrepancy must be resolved.

5) In section 2.8.2, Object Lists, the second paragraph contains the word 
"tripe" and the non-word "shodul"; "triple" and "should", respectively, 
were intended.  Similarly, the phrase "one of the other" should be "one or 
the other".

6) In section 2.8.4, RDF Collections, the phrase "then triple patterns" is 
used, but seems awkward at best.  Should this be "the triple patterns" or 
merely "triple patterns"?

7) The second section 2.8.4, rdf:type, should probably be numbered 2.8.5.

8) In the second section 2.8.4, rdf:type, the keyword "a" is 
described.  That is a fairly unfortunate spelling, and it's probably too 
late to do anything about it.  But I would have thought that "isA" would be 
a much more obvious, and more readily pronounceable (in context), spelling.

I regret that I am unable to continue my review at this time due to 
overwhelming other commitments.

Hope this helps,


Jim Melton --- Editor of ISO/IEC 9075-* (SQL)     Phone: +1.801.942.0144
   Co-Chair, W3C XML Query WG; F&O (etc.) editor    Fax : +1.801.942.3345
Oracle Corporation        Oracle Email: jim dot melton at oracle dot com
1930 Viscounti Drive      Standards email: jim dot melton at acm dot org
Sandy, UT 84093-1063 USA          Personal email: jim at melton dot name
=  Facts are facts.   But any opinions expressed are the opinions      =
=  only of myself and may or may not reflect the opinions of anybody   =
=  else with whom I may or may not have discussed the issues at hand.  =

Received on Thursday, 30 March 2006 07:04:32 UTC