suggestions about "RDF* and SPARQL*" draft

https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/rdf-star-cg-spec.html looks great and I 
learned a lot. I have listed some suggestions with the more picky 
copyediting ones at the end.

Thanks,

Bob DuCHarme

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

- "the purpose of this section will be to provide an informal 
introduction" How long do you want it? I could draft something.

- Before Example 1, I would add this: "(In all examples, prefix 
declarations have been omitted for brevity.)" Even better: say "In most 
examples, prefix declarations..." and then include the prefix 
declaration in Example 4, which would be clearer with it. (Too many 
people think that there is something magic about certain common prefixes 
so that they don't need to be declared.)

- Section 2. "is called an asserted triple" At this point in the 
document I was confused about how a triple could be in a dataset without 
being asserted. After I read section 6.2.1 I understood. I think that 
this paragraph could use something like "Non-asserted triples are 
discussed further in section 6.2.1".

- "Each named graph is a pair consisting of an IRI or a blank node (the 
graph name), and an RDF* graph" This would be clearer as "Each named 
graph is a pair consisting of either an IRI or a blank node serving as 
the graph's name and an RDF* graph". This plays up the importance of 
role played by this IRI or blank node more.

- Section 3.1 (and 4.2) "which replace the productions with the same 
number (any) in the original grammar". Saying "replace with X" implies 
that X is the replacement--in this case, the number itself, which I 
would read as meaning "amount" here. This would be better as "which 
replace the productions that were assigned the same numbers in the 
original grammar."

- After the reference to "function eval(D(G), algebra expression)" there 
are two references to "function eval" without showing the parameters or 
any formatting of "eval" to show that it's a reference to a syntax 
expression (although I suppose a high-level one). I think saying "the 
eval function" instead of "function eval" would read better in those two 
references.

Copyediting:

- "allowing to represent" -> "allowing the representation of"

- "a embedded" -> "an embedded"

- "The subject and embSubject productions sets the curSubject" The 
sentence has a plural subject (pardon the overloading), so verb should 
be "set" and not "sets"

- "nothing prevents other concrete syntaxes of RDF* to be proposed" -> 
"nothing prevents other concrete syntaxes of RDF* from being proposed" 
(or "nothing prevents the proposal of other RDF* concrete syntaxes")

- "solution mappings: Two SPARQL*" lower-case "t" in "two" because it's 
all one sentence

- "These embedded triple patterns are allowed in subject ([75], [81]) 
and object ([80], [105]) position of SPARQL* triple patterns" -> "...are 
allowed in *the* subject ... position*s* of..."

- "Based on the SPARQL grammar the SPARQL specification" add comma after 
"grammar"

- "is not in Ω)." Move period inside of parentheses because the entire 
sentence is inside of them

- 4.4 after "following four properties:" the bulleted list looks like 
the conversion from a sentence to a bulleted list wasn't quite finished. 
The bulleted items shouldn't have the commas or "and" after them. See 
the numbered list in 6.1, although the 4.4 ones don't need a period 
because they're not complete sentences.

- "semantics, in order" drop comma