Review: SPARQL 1.1 Entailment Regimes

Overall: Due to very short notice, we  were only able to give a brief review. In short, the specification has good quality in general and still has room for improving its presentation:


 *   Abstract:
    *   "SPARQL is a query language …": shouldn't SPARQL be both a query language and a protocol?
    *   "It is desirable to utilize SPARQL as a query language in these cases …": given the importance of RDF and OWL in the Semantic Web, we propose to replace "desirable" to "necessary".
    *   "…  standard entailment relations in the semantic web such as RDF entailment, RDFS entailment, etc. are defined in this document": Are the definitions different from those in the RDF and OWL specifications? If so, we need to summarise the differences somewhere in this specification.
 *   Inconsistent graph:
    *   Inconsistency is not defined formally in the specification. The terms "inconsistency" and "inconsistent graph" are first used in Sec 1.3, without formal definitions.
    *   Due to the nature of the Web, the handling of inconsistent graph is a key issue in this specification. It might be useful for readers if a future version of this specification  includes a sub-section as a single entrance point on inconsistent graphs.
 *   Diagrams: some diagrams might be useful to illustrate some abstract ideas in the following sections:
    *   1.2 Effects of Different Entailment Regimes
    *   2.1 Blank Nodes in the Queried Graph

Greetings,

Jeff Pan and Yuting Zhao


The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.