- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 16:14:35 -0500
- To: andy.seaborne@hp.com
- Cc: dawg mailing list <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Mar 1, 2007, at 10:27 AM, Seaborne, Andy wrote: > Addressing editorial comments in this pass up from start sec 5 to > end section 7. Again, thanks for the detailed responses. > Kendall Clark wrote: > > > > 5 Graph Patterns > > > > "SPARQL is based around graph pattern matching." -- this is the > 3rd or > > 4th similar sentence, spread across the doc, and each one is > *slightly* > > different. Is there some significance to the differences? > > Is it really necessary to keep repeating the point? I think that > > confuses spec readers. It confuses me, anyway. Should I interpret no response as you don't agree, editorially, and that there won't be any changes? > > 5.1 Basic Graph Patterns > > > > "SPARQL pattern matching is defined in terms matching basic graph > > patterns..." -- "of" missing? Also, what kind of "SPARQL pattern > > matching"? Triple? Graph? And where is this defined precisely? > Can we > > get a link? A pointer or reference? Same here as above. At least the missing "of" should be added. > > > > "Filters can be mixed into...but do not cause the end of a basic > graph > > pattern." -- what is the "end" > > of a basic graph pattern? ?? > > 5.1.1 Blank Node Labels > > > > s/"Labels"/"labels"/ > > This is a heading. Left as "L" Ah, just so. No idea why I suggested otherwise! :( > > This section refers to a "syntax error" -- which one? How's it > spelled? > > Is this a generic syntax error or a specific one? Confusing. > > Errors are in the protocol so I've changed the text to be just "A > label can be used in only a single basic graph pattern in any query." Which one, though? You keep saying "they're in the protocol" -- if so, why not say *which* error in the protocol spec would be used for *this* case? And for all the other cases? Leaving the reader to go and look, when there could be a hyperlink, seems less than ideally useful. > > "In a SPARQL query string..." -- what's this? I think it's the first > > use of this wording. It's different than other wordings, so I'm > left to > > do the boring, tedious interpretive work of trying to decide if > it's a > > new construct or "informal" language. Can't we just stick to the > same > > terms? > > Are you suggesting using "SPARQL query" at this point? No. I was simply asking what the difference is between a "SPARQL Query string" and a "SPARQL query" is -- the spec (IIRC) uses them sorta interchangeably, which I find distracting. > > Third sentence: run-on. Did this one get fixed? > FILTER is a keyword in the grammar. Ideally, I'd like to include a > list of keywords but they are available by a scan of the grammar. +1 > > Much of this paragraph is commentary and should be struck. > > I prefer to set the scene here, based on other feedback over the > various publications the WG has done. We're writing for several > audiences. Heh, well, I don't agree, but I guess that's the end of that. :> > I propose we delete this (6.4) section. +1 > I think it's worth distinguishing between the syntax and the > abstraction of a query. Being the syntax for something and bing > that thing are different. Keywords are syntax and don't partake of > the abstract concept formed. I agree that there is a distinction here; I don't believe that the distinction is made explicitly enough. Cheers, Kendall
Received on Monday, 5 March 2007 21:14:58 UTC