Re: Agenda 2009-06-16

Le 15 juin 09 à 09:48, Seaborne, Andy a écrit :

>> a) If we can find consensus, I would like to decide on publishing
>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/features/ as FPWD.
>> Particularly, if you CAN'T participate tomorrow and want to raise
>> concerns, please send them, if any possible before the Teleconf.
>
> What's the status on these comments I've extract below:
> Key ones are:
>
>  Non-mention of the time-permitting in F&R.[*]

I added them in the introduction section [1]
Don't you think that's enough ?

Alex.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/features/#Introduction_features

>
>  Negation is not syntax
>
> For comments not going into the FPWD doc, could you indicate why,  
> please.
>
> 	Andy
>
> [*] "View source" does not count.
>
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009AprJun/0346.html
> ----
> 2.2.2 but generally comment:
>
> """
> That feature could be used, for instance, in the following use cases:
> """
> Not sure "could be used" is helpful without spelling out how it  
> would be done, but that gets into far too much detail. Maybe just  
> stick to the basic point.
> ---
> 2.3: Negation.
>
> "Hence, a new syntax is desired."
>
>
> The discussions so far have not been able just syntax.  The text  
> implies to me that it is just syntax for writing OPTION/!BOUND.
>
> The example of MINUS might be taken to imply that is the likely  
> direction of the WG because it's the only example.
>
> (mentioning SQL EXISTS has been done).
>
> ----
> 2.4.3:
>
> "though that might be unparseable or something along the lines of"
> Drifting into discussion?
>
> --------
> The reply was: Kjetil:
>> Yeah, I don't like this myself. We should also have a review to  
>> ensure that we
>> only have existing implementations here, and it this sounds like  
>> speculation.
>
>
> =================
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009AprJun/0346.html
>
> ------------------
> Will the time-permitting features at least be mentioned?  Especially  
> SPARQL/OWL.
> They don't need as much justification (IMO) - indeed for this  
> publication, just placeholder structure is enough but something  
> should go in.
>
> Reply: Alex:
>> We've commented them from the TOC / Structure as we didn't have time
>> to properly define it for the FPWD.
>> Yet, I just added the list of complete features in the introduction,
>> which lists all of them.
>
> I still think should list them even if that means empty sections.   
> It's about being complete to the community (the inline link to  
> FeatureProposal does not count).
>
>
> ---
> == 2.4.2 Project expressions / Descriptions
> "ex:substring"
>
> Use and example from XQuery/XPath F&O (e.g. fn:substring and strings  
> are zero-based) to indicate we will reuse where possible.
> ------------------
> == 2.4.3 Project expressions / Existing implementation
>
> """
> This is also useful in CONSTRUCT:
>
> CONSTRUCT { ?x foaf:name (concat(?fn, " ", ?sn)) . }
> WHERE { ?x foaf:firstName ?fn ; foaf:family_name ?sn . }
> """
> This is not a project expression!
>
> Just keep the section clean and don't discuss CONSTRUCT.  Just need  
> a direct discussion of project expressions.
>
>
> =============
> And new one:
> CONSTRUCT { ?x foaf:name ?name }
> WHERE {
>   (SELECT concat(?fn, " ", ?sn) AS ?name
>    WHERE { foaf:firstName ?fn ; foaf:family_name ?sn . })
> }
>
> Suggest change (SELECT ) to {SELECT } as two implementations already  
> do that.
>

-- 
Alexandre Passant
Digital Enterprise Research Institute
National University of Ireland, Galway
:me owl:sameAs <http://apassant.net/alex> .

Received on Tuesday, 16 June 2009 01:14:51 UTC