- From: Polleres, Axel <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 11:23:06 +0200
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
> > 3) In the definition table in Section 18.2.1 " > > Group { P1 P2 ... } > > v is in-scope if it is in-scope in one or more of P1, P2, ... > > " > > > > I think it is sufficient (and more consistent with the other > > definitions) to write > > > > " > > SELECT * { P } > > Group { P1 P2 ... } > > v is in-scope in one or more of P1, P2, ... > > " > > Not done - adding the SELECT stresses the "SELECT *" query level form and it's any group however nested (and it may be ASK etc) Sorry, the "SELECT * {P}" was a copy-past error I guess, meant mainly changing the text in the second column, i.e. s/if it is in-scope// (because otherwise we'd need to write for UNION, etc. also "if it is in scope in" to be consistent in wording) So, how about the following: ---------------------- { P1 P2 ... } v is in-scope in one or more of P1, P2, ... ---------------------- Or, if you prefer to leave the word "Group" ---------------------- Group { P1 P2 ... } v is in-scope in one or more of P1, P2, ... ---------------------- All other changes look fine to me! Thanks for the quick fixing, Axel P.s.: > which are your definitions ... :-) ;-) happy to take the blame, as long as I am allowed to improve my own wording reading it again from some distance ;-) -- Dr. Axel Polleres Siemens AG Österreich Corporate Technology Central Eastern Europe Research & Technologies CT T CEE Tel.: +43 (0) 51707-36983 Mobile: +43 (0) 664 88550859 Fax: +43 (0) 51707-56682 mailto:axel.polleres@siemens.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Andy Seaborne [mailto:andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com] > Sent: Wednesday, 23 May 2012 10:58 AM > To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > Subject: Re: Editorial remarks on the definition of in-scope > (ACTION-618 - part 2) > > > > On 23/05/12 08:32, Polleres, Axel wrote: > > Some more small editorial remarks on the definition table > for in-scope > > > variables(http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#variab > > leScope) > > which are your definitions ... :-) > > > > > 1) In the definition table in Section 18.2.1 > > > > " > > (expr AS v) for BIND, SELECT and GROUP BY > > v is in-scope > > " > > > > For clarification, I would prefer to split this into 3 rows > in the table as follows: > > > > > > " > > BIND (expr AS v) > > v is in-scope > > > > SELECT .. (expr AS v) .. { P } > > v is in-scope > > > > SELECT .. { P } GROUP BY (expr AS v) > > v is in-scope (due to the equivalence with SELECT > .. { P } { > > ... BIND (expr AS v) } GROUP BY v) ) " > > Done. > > > > > 2) In the definition table in Section 18.2.1 > > > > " > > SELECT .. v .. { P } > > v is in-scope if v is mentioned as a project variable " > > > > I think it is sufficient to write > > " > > SELECT .. v .. { P } > > v is in-scope > > " > > > > Done > > > 3) In the definition table in Section 18.2.1 " > > Group { P1 P2 ... } > > v is in-scope if it is in-scope in one or more of P1, P2, ... > > " > > > > I think it is sufficient (and more consistent with the other > > definitions) to write > > > > " > > SELECT * { P } > > Group { P1 P2 ... } > > v is in-scope in one or more of P1, P2, ... > > " > > Not done - adding the SELECT stresses the "SELECT *" query > level form and it's any group however nested (and it may be ASK etc) > > How about just > > { P1 P2 ... } > > or leave as-is. > > (the "group" was added to emphasis which use of {} we are > talking about but it is valid without and it works in the > same in OPTIONAL{} so reading it as an exclusive or inclusive > list gets the same meaning) > > > 4) I'd suggest to add links to #variableScope for *all* > appearances of the word "in-scope", for instance in section > > 18.2.5.1 ORDER BY > > > > s/ > > where vars is the set of variables mentioned in the SELECT > clause or all named variables that are in-scope in the query > if SELECT * used. > > / > > where vars is the set of variables mentioned in the SELECT > clause or all named variables that are<a > href="#variableScope">in-scope</a> in the query if SELECT * used. > > / > > > > Similarly, > > in section 18.2.5.2 Projection > > and > > in section 10 Assignment > > > > Done where it makes sense. There are only a couple of places. > > Uses in the section #variableScope are not linked to the > section because it that looks strange to me. > > One use is a different "in-scope" is about FILTERs - made it > "in scope". > > > > > 5) Finally, in Section 18.2.1 I suggest to put the word > "in-scope" in italic font, where it is defined, i.e. > > > > s/ > > We define a variable to be in-scope if there is a way [...] / We > > define a variable to be<i>in-scope</i> if there is a way [...] > > Done. > > > > > > > > > Best, > > Axel > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2012 09:23:57 UTC