Re: Review of SPARQL 1.1 Query (Property paths, negation, select expression, testing values)

Matt - thank you very much for the review and comments.

Split up here to help the editors track comments so we don't loose things.

	Andy

-------------------------

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" ?

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

Section 9 introduction:

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

"Cycles in the graph an(Property paths, negation, select expression, 
testing values)d 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 
cycles?

Section 9.2:

Typos:
"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?

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

Section 9.3.6.2:

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

Section 15.1.2:

Typo:
"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:

Typo:
"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 ?

Received on Thursday, 23 September 2010 13:03:38 UTC