- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 11:00:32 +0000
- To: SPARQL Comments <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <A53463B2-F6E9-4B17-85A8-5D5F267267D9@deri.org>
forwarding Reto's reply which went to the wrong address for the records... > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 07:59:43 +0200 > From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON@smtp.uibk.ac.at> > To: <reto.krummenacher@sti2.at> > > The original message was received at Wed, 20 Oct 2010 07:59:12 +0200 > from c703-deri12.uibk.ac.at [138.232.65.152] > > ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- > <public-sparql-comments@w3.org> > (reason: 550 Unrouteable address) > > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- > ... while talking to aji.keio.w3.org.: > >>> DATA > <<< 550 Unrouteable address > 550 5.1.1 <public-sparql-comments@w3.org>... User unknown > <<< 503-All RCPT commands were rejected with this error: > <<< 503-Unrouteable address > <<< 503 Valid RCPT command must precede DATA > > > > From: "Reto Krummenacher" <reto.krummenacher@sti2.at> > Date: 20 October 2010 06:59:12 GMT+01:00 > To: <public-sparql-comments@w3.org> > Subject: Re: Feedback to some SPARQL 1.1 Working Drafts > > > Axel, SPARQL WG. > > Thanks for this notice and the group answer, as well as public comment responses > to my feedback on service descriptions. > > Looking forward to contributing to future rounds, > Reto Krummenacher > > On 10/14/2010 11:16 PM, Axel Polleres wrote: > > Dear Reto, > > > > Apologies for the delayed reply and thanks for your comments, which we tried to address as far as possible in the current round of drafts published on 2010-10-14. We'd appreciate further comments on these new drafts, to be found at > > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-sparql11-query-20101014/ > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-sparql11-update-20101014/ > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-sparql11-http-rdf-update-20101014/ > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-sparql11-entailment-20101014/ > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-sparql11-update-20101014/ > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-sparql11-service-description-20101014/ > > Note that we didn't yet publish a new version of the protocol document, so your comments on the protocol will be considered in a future publication cycle. > > > > best regards, > > > > Axel, on behalf od the SPARQL Working group. > > > > > >> From: Reto Krummenacher <reto.krummenacher@sti2.at> > >> Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 14:33:53 +0200 > >> Message-ID: <4C580CB1.4020308@sti2.at> > >> To: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > >> Dear editors, > >> > >> Below I send you some feedback, thoughts and observations that I made while > >> reading the working drafts of SPARQL 1.1. Apologies for stating obvious things > >> that might already have been discovered or reported. I did not check the mailing > >> list for previous reactions. > >> > >> Kind regards, > >> Reto > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> SPARQL 1.1 Update > >> ----------------- > >> > >> 3.2.1 : A DELETE operation may indeed remove entailed statements, but it might > >> also lead to the removal of statements that caused the entailment. Do you refer > >> to this state as being inconsistent; i.e., entailed statements that could no > >> longer be entailed cause the inconsistencies? Wouldn't thus any store that does > >> not perform consistency checking actually violate the knowledge state? And, is > >> it really enough to only raise an exception? Shouldn't there be at least an > >> option to have the store make sure that such now wrongly entailed statements are > >> also removed? > >> > >> 4 : I do not understand the claim that operations of a request are exectuted in > >> lexical order. > >> > >> 4.1.2 : the second example has two PREFIX statements, one before the DELETE, the > >> other before the INSERT. All other examples do not seem to require the two > >> PREFIXes. > >> > >> 4.1.4 / 4.1.6 : both sections contain the exact same example. As there is a > >> dedicated section 4.1.6 on DELETE WHERE, the example could be removed in 4.1.4. > >> > >> 4.2.1 : Why should stores that do not allow empty graphs always return SUCCESS, > >> although the empty graph was definitively not created? > >> > >> SPARQL 1.1 HTTP Protocol > >> ------------------------ > >> > >> 1 : a(?) SPARQL Update > >> > >> 4.2 : an(?) RDF graph representation > >> > >> 5.3 : "... that the origin server incorporateS the RDF,..." > >> > >> 5.3 : in the box there are two need, "need need to know" > >> > >> 5.3 : there might be need for a link to the Service Description document from > >> within the box. > >> > >> SPARQL 1.1 Federation > >> --------------------- > >> > >> 2 : "For instance, an eNdpoint which..." > >> > >> 2 : The part about WSDL: a link to the WSDL document and section would improve > >> the document. > >> > >> 2 : "according TO the SPARQL alGebra" > >> > >> 3 : Could it make sense to take the same syntactical approach to BINDING > >> clauses, as was taken to FILTER clauses; i.e. BINDING become part of the WHERE > >> clause and are not a third type of clause: SELECT WHERE{FILTER} BINDING, but > >> rather SELECT WHERE{FILTER BINDING}? > >> > >> SPARQL 1.1 Service Description > >> ------------------------------ > >> > >> 3.2.2 : give examples of language instances, and point to the corresponding > >> sections in the document. > >> > >> 3.2.4 : sd:Aggregate vs. sd:AggregateFunction. Being a function, wouldn't it be > >> useful to define sd:AggregateFunction as a subclass of sd:Function. Or, are > >> aggregate operations to be used in SPARQL HAVING clauses not considered to be > >> functions according to 3.2.3? > >> > >> 3.3.4 : adding internal references would help I think; e.g., a direct link to > >> sd:feature > >> > >> 3.4.1 : Assuming this is the URL of the SPARQL service that accepts HTTP calls > >> according to the SPARQL 1.1 Protocol, I think this would be a good spot to link > >> to the corresponding sections in the protocol document. Yes, I think this is an > >> appropriate at this point. > >> > >> 3.4.2 : list shortly and point back to the defined instances > >> > >> 3.4.3 / 3.4.4 : "Relates an instance..." > >> > >> 3.4.5 : "Relates a named graph...". Could this not also be used with sd:Graph > >> instead of only with sd:NamedGraph? > >> > >> 3.4.8 : The range is missing, I would assume that extensions should also be of > >> type sd:Language, shouldn't it? > >> > >> 3.4.8 / 3.4.9 / 3.4.10 / 3.4.11 / 3.4.12 : "Relates an instance..." > >> > >> 3.4.9 / 3.2.2 : Subset is indeed a bit confusing. Considering the instances of > >> sd:Language I would rather opt for something like SPARQL language version, or > >> SPARQL language variance. While sd:SPARQL11Query and sd:SPARQL11Update could be > >> considered subsets of SPARQL11, sd:SPARQL10Query does not really share any > >> common super-set. > >> > >> 3.4.10 : What is the difference between a supported feature (sd:feature) and an > >> implemented feature (sd:propertyFeature)? Are there any examples that could be > >> given for a named property? > >> > >> 3.4.13 : As the example in Section 4 shows, there is some overlap with VoID. > >> Would it make sense to relate to the suggestion of using dc:format according to > >> VoID in the context of sd:resultFormat? > >> > >> 3.4.14 : range? > >> > >> 3.4.15 : The text states that sd:namedGraph relates an sd:Dataset to a named > >> graph, the domain however is sd:GraphCollection. A dataset can thus have either > >> a graph plus one named graph, or a graph plus one graph collection? Still, the > >> wording seems to be misleading. > >> > >> 3.4.17 : I think there should be a paragraph about how to describe graphs. The > >> example points to VoID. Shall that become the standard vocabulary, or would it > >> be up to the service describer to use any model to describe data sets. > >> Effectively, there are at least some overlaps between VoiD and the Service > >> Description model, hence the relationship might have to be clarified; starting > >> with void:Dataset vs. sd:Dataset or rather sd:Graph. > >> > >> 3.4.1 - 3.4.17 : a bullet listing of the range and domain could improve the > >> readability. > >> > > > > > > > >
Attachments
- text/html attachment: stored
- text/plain attachment: Attached_Message_Part.txt
- text/html attachment: stored
Received on Wednesday, 17 November 2010 11:01:03 UTC