Re: rq25 (1.18) review (part III)

Continuing with responses to part III of Kendall's review.

Kendall Clark wrote on 03/05/2007 04:39:52 PM:
> On Mar 2, 2007, at 10:36 AM, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> 
> > > What status does the talk of arranging provenance information, 
> > say, in
> > > the default graph have? That's *one* design pattern, but there are
> > > others. It sounds like it should have some normative weight, and it
> > > certainly does if anything else in the document has any.
> >
> > Other people have found examples useful, both at the level of this 
> > section and as an overall observation/request that more examples 
> > should be included.  We have to have a balance of needs.
> 
> Sure. Fine. I agree. But examples should be marked explicitly as non- 
> normative at the very least. They should not be normative. That's my 
> substantive point and I don't believe it's editorial.

We will be discussing and deciding what is normative and what is 
informative (non-normative) at next week's teleconference. I've put in a 
todo in the document's introduction to include the results of the working 
group's decision.

> > > And these seem contradictory: First, "There may be no named graphs;
> > > there is always a default graph"; and, second, "A query does not 
> > need
> > > to involve the default graph..."
> >
> > The second is about the query; the first about the dataset.  The 
> > second extract does say query - can you suggest better wording here?
> 
> You could say explicitly that the first wording is about the RDF 
> dataset. I'm sure this is fine, it just needs to be more explicit.

Changed to "An RDF Dataset may contain zero named graphs; an RDF Dataset 
always contains one default graph."

> > > 8.1 Examples of RDF Datasets
> > >
> > > This section should be struck entirely.
> 
> Since there's an entire section of examples, why have the exemplary 
> stuff in the intro section? If you moved all the exemplary stuff 
> here, you could mark it as non-normative, and declare victory! :>

The example designs have been moved into 8.1.

> > > 8.2 Specifying RDF Datasets
> > >
> > > "A query processor may use these IRIs in any way..." -- Which IRIs?
> 
> I don't know how to interpret this non-response...

I've moved that paragraph to immediately before 8.2.1 and rewritten it as:

"""
A query processor may use the IRIs from the FROM and FROM NAMED clauses 
(or from a SPARQL protocol request) in any way to associate an RDF Dataset 
with a query. For example, it could use IRIs to retrieve documents, parse 
them and use the resulting triples as one of the graphs; alternatively, it 
might only service queries that specify IRIs of graphs that it has already 
stored.
"""

> > "clause" is used to indicate a part of the SPARQL language.  The 
> > term is also used in the grammar itself.  Other suggestions welcome.
> 
> I don't have anything specific; in general I just had a hard time 
> relating the grammar to the discussion of the grammar and the 
> constructs; and part of my problem hereabouts was the vocabulary. 
> Perhaps I'm the only person who had such interpretive difficulties. 
> Wouldn't be the first time.

"Clause" is clear to me, but I'm also intimately familiar with SPARQL. I'm 
not sure of a better terminology after a bit of thought, so I haven't made 
any changes here.

> > > Sentence is confusing.
> >
> > I don't know how else to put this given the 'range' text above.
> 
> I would have suggested alternative wording if I'd understood the 
> claim; I still don't, alas.

This is describing the standard behavior of the GRAPH clause with a 
variable. What wording would you suggest? I've changed from:

"The query below matches the graph pattern on each of the named graphs in 
the dataset..."

to

"The query below matches the graph pattern against each of the named 
graphs in the dataset..."

...which reads a bit clearer to me.

> > > 9 Solution Sequence and Modifiers
> > >
> > > "Modifiers are applied in the order given by the list." -- What 
> > list?
> >
> > The one above that sentence.
> 
> I think it would help if you referred to the list explicitly. I 
> thought the doc might mean the list above the sentence, but it would 
> be good to be more explicit. If for no other reason, I'm not sure how 
> any accessiblity browser (for deaf or blind users, for example) might 
> confuse this even more. I should think that in a browser for deaf 
> people this would be *very* confusing.

I can't say that I understand what you mean about problems with "a browser 
for deaf people" (I'm unfortunately not aware of how a browser for deaf 
people differs from a browser for hearing people), but I've changed the 
sentence to say "the list above" rather than "the list". 

> > > Last sentence in that paragraph is a run-on.
> >
> > It refers to triples in the template that have no variables; 
> > different from after substitution.
> 
> Different from after substitution? I can't parse that. Whatever the 
> sentence is about, it's not properly punctuated.

Changed to:

"""
The graph template can contain triples with no variables (known as ground 
or explicit triples), and these also appear in the output RDF graph 
returned by the CONSTRUCT query form.
"""

> > > What's a "knowledge base"? What's a "target knowledge base"?
> > >
> > > What's a "SPARQL query processor"? Is that different than the 
> > "service"?
> 
> I don't know how to interpret the non-response to this. I can phrase 
> it differently: strike 'knowledge base' or define it. Strike "SPARQL 
> query processor" or define it.

I changed 'knowledge base' to 'RDF Dataset'. 'Query processor' occurs in 
several places throughout the document. @@Eric@@ I've asked Eric to look 
at these usages.

> > > Finally, the sentence starting "Note that the SPARQL protocol
> > > describes" should be struck. Any such commentary or note doesn't 
> > belong
> > > in the query language spec at all, IMO, and certainly not in the
> > > section on conformance. It sticks out like a sore thumb.
> > >
> > > If there is interest in a statement like this in the protocol spec,
> > > that should be handled in the normal process for the WG. In fact, 
> > #4 in
> > > the protocol conformance section already says that, so this 
> > statement
> > > is also redundant and further muddies the normative status of the 
> > query
> > > spec...
> 
> Is EricP going to reply to these bits?

@@Eric@@ As before, Eric will be looking at the conformance situation.

Lee

> 
> >    Thank you for all the comments, they have been a great help,
> 
> Happy to help.
> 
> Cheers,
> Kendall
>

Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2007 23:04:21 UTC