Re: rq25 (1.18) review (part II)

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