- From: Alexandre Passant <alexandre.passant@deri.org>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:14:07 -0700
- To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Cc: 'RDF Data Access Working Group' <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
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