- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 12:01:01 +0000
- To: SWBPD <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
- CC: Andy Seaborne <Andy_Seaborne@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>
An action from Bristol SWBPD F2F:
ACTION: JJC review SPARQL WD re
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20041012/#extendedtests
Three points (second more significant)
1) (I guess obvious to editors and uninteresting to everyone else)
The text "unbound variables cause an error." will need clarification in
later drafts. Processing order needs to be addressed, since a typical
engine will plan query evaluation order, to try and not have unbound
variables
2)
This section largely presupposes that RDF Datatypes *are* XML Schema
datatypes *are* XSLT/XQuery F&O datatypes; thus somewhat presupposes
that the answer to the value space question is the one given by XPath 2.0.
Personally I think this makes a lot of sense, but it will need
highlighting in our WD on datatypes, as one of the key advantages of
going with the XPath 2.0 answer to what the datatype values are. The
ability to reuse the F&O work (which is very extensive and comprehensive).
While it would be possible to go with the other answers to the value
space question (i.e. all different, or more are the same) without
invalidating section 12 of SPARQL, it is likely to cause conceptual and
in the end implementation difficulties ...
Suggested actions:
- me include link to this section from SWBPD draft nore
- SWBPDWG include DAWG on our pre-release review of datatypes note
planned for christmas
3) editorial - ToC href links for 12.1 and 12.2 are incorrect
Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 18 November 2004 12:01:38 UTC