Review of SPARQL 1.1 Query


Please find my review below.


Section 8.1:

Question: is NOT EXISTS { ... } equivalent to !EXISTS { ... } ?

Section 8.2:

In the first paragraph would it be better to use "left-hand side" and 
"right-hand side" instead of "one side" and "other side" ?

"evaluates both [it's] arguments" => [its]

Section 9 introduction:

"any given path expression" at the end of the second paragraph should be 

"Cycles in the graph and in paths are possible" -- from the definition 
of arbitrary length path, it looks like cycles are not possible in 
aribtrary length paths. Is it only fixed-length paths that may contain 

Section 9.2:

"Example: Find nodes connected but not by [rdf;type]" => [rdf:type]
"Note: This path expression does not [gaurantee] the order of the 
results" => [guarantee]

Section 9.3.5:

Does the term "intermediate node" used in the definition of 
ArbitraryLengthPath need to be formally defined?

"intermediate nodes in the graph are [trarversed] once only." => [traversed]


"and [deteching] when a graph node" => [detecting]

Section 10.2 Introduction:

Defintion: Aggregation
In the definition of Aggregation, the purpose of card[range(g)] - 
card[M] was not clear to me until after I read Section 10.2.2. There 
should be an explanation of the purpose of this argument to accompany 
the defintion of Aggregation.

In the example at the end of this section involving ex:agg, parenthesis 
are mismatched and eg:agg should be changed to ex:agg.

Section 15.1.2:

"Variables can [be] also be used in expressions if they are introduced 
[as to the] earlier, syntactically in the same SELECT clause:" => remove 
the identified text

Section 16.4.14:

COALESCE(5,?x) returns 2 ... shouldn't this return 5?

Section 16.4.15:

"interprets it as a effective boolean value, [the]" => [then]

Section 16.4.16:

I don't understand this sentence: "Errors in comparisons cause the IN 
expression to raise an error if the RDF term being tested is not found 
to be in the list elsewhere in the list of terms" I understood the 
sentence after looking at the examples but not after reading it. I think 
it would be clearer if "to be in the list" was removed.

Section 16.4.21:

should "str"^^<http://example/romanNumeral> be 
"iiii"^^<http://example/romanNumeral> ?

Section 16.4.22:

Should "123"@en be "chat"@en ?

SPARQL 1.1 Federation Extensions:


Typo: "Query extension [to] for executing distributed queries" => remove 

Section 2, 3rd from last paragraph:

Typo: "SPARQL [Alebra]" => [Algebra]

End of Section 2.1 (editorial note):

Typo: "as [it] the question of having variables in ..." => [is]

Example in Section 3: variable ?iuphar is undefined

Typo (2nd to last paragraph in Section 5.1): "It is a syntax error [if] 
to use..." => remove if

Received on Wednesday, 22 September 2010 20:47:51 UTC