Re: sparql update review

Hi Axel,

2012/9/9 Polleres, Axel <axel.polleres@siemens.com>

> Hi Carlos,
>
> As we want to go for CR/PR vote, I discussed (a while ago) with Paul
> whether we have addressed all your review comments from July and
> now looked into this again.
>
> Summary:
>
> 1) You review mentioned a couple of typos (fixed)
>
ok

>
> 2) In the beginning of your review  you make some structural change
> suggestions
>
>   "In the beginning I found it messy with starting with non informative
> sections[...]"
>
> we as editors feel it would be too much change to address these at this
> stage, i.e. if we do
> some major changes on the structure now, I am afraid, that we need more
> rounds of
> review, which would potentially delay the further process.
> So, I'd wanted to ask you, whether you'd be ok to leave the structure of
> the doc as it is?
>
if you think that the structure is ok for people to understand the document
I'm Ok. I felt that it was a bit complicated for me, but if you think that
it is clear enough, I'm ok to leave it as it is.



> 3) Lastly, as for this one:
>
> > Another thing I found a bit difficult to understand is the definition of
> > QuadTriple and QuadData. QuadTriple is defined at the beginning of the
> > document in the terminology section, but QuadData is defined in Section
> > 3.1.1. I would add a comment to diferentiate them clearly (looking at the
> > grammar have the same form).
>
> I am not sure here, since I don't find "QuadTriple" in the doc, do you
> mean QuadPattern?
> I addressed this now by adding the following bullet in the "1.1.2
> Terminology" section which hopefully addresses
> your concern, cf.
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/update-1.1/Overview.xml#terminology
>
>   "* QuadData - A QuadPattern without variables. "
>
I'm happy with it.

>
> Further:
> > I would also add the formal definition of
> > QuadPattern to the formal model section.
>
> We have links to the grammar wherever we use QuadPattern or QuadData,
> I think that's sufficient and would prefer not to add more to the formal
> definitions part.
>
If as editors you think that this is sufficient, I'm ok with it.

>
> Please let us know whether your'e ok with those changes.
>
> I'm ok with them, thanks Axel.

cheers

Carlos

> Thanks,
> Axel
>