This is the disposition of the comments received by the RDF Data Access Working Group during the Candidate Recommendation publication period of the SPARQL Query Language for RDF. The disposition of comments received prior to the CR publication of this document can be found in the request to transition this specification to CR.
The Working Group has asked commenters to let the group know if they were not satisfied with the response to their comments.
In the table below, red in the WG decision column indicates that no changes to the document or related materials were made based on the comment, and green indicates that a change was made to accommodate the comment.
In the "Commenter reply" column, red indicates the commenter objected to the WG resolution, green indicates approval, and yellow means the commenter didn't respond to the Working Group response to the comment.
Commenter | Comment | Working Group decision | Commenter reply |
---|---|---|---|
Alexander Richter |
SPARQL Feedback: Support for Prefixed Names allowing Leading Digits
I wish to express in the strongest terms my support for maintaining the policy to allow leading digits in prefixed names... |
The WG has received no requests to remove the at-risk feature of allowing leading digits in prefixed names, and the specification has maintained the feature. | No response was solicited from the original commenter. |
Arjohn Kampman |
minimim cardinality of REDUCED solution sets
... |
Editorial fix. | None. |
Axel Polleres |
example in current cand. rec....
... |
Answers the second question. Editorial fix. |
Acknowledged answer. |
Richard Newman |
!=
|
Operator extensibility already allows for the proposed behavior. | "Ah, operator extensibility hadn't occurred to me..." |
Arjohn Kampman |
EBV of invalid numeric literals
It's not completely clear to me what the Effective Boolean Value of invalid numeric literals should be. I have been unable to find a decisive answer in the current SPARQL specification. |
Editorial clarification made. | Acknowledged clarification. |
Malcolm Crowe |
SPARQL Query language for RDF
I have noticed some small errors in section 12: 12.2.1 in the algorithm, LeftJoin(G,A,true) should read LeftJoin(G,SA,true) 12.5 the evaluation of Filter(P,F) should read eval(D(G),Filter(P,F)) = Filter(eval(D(G),p),F) |
Editorial bug fixed. (Document correct as is for first comment.) | None. |
Richard Newman |
Syntax error in algebra example
12.2.2 has a minor error... |
Editorial fix. | None. |
Frank McCabe |
Cannot
make sense of this
|
Editorial clarifications | Acknowledged clarification |
Frank McCabe |
Issue against june 14th edition of SPARQL
|
Section 9.1, #modOrderBy, specifies the behavior in question | None. |
Frank McCabe |
Comments on June 14th release
|
Sections 4.1.4 and 12.3.1 specify the behavior of blank nodes in SPARQL queries; accessing collections is a postponed issue. | The Chair received offlist acknowledgement to this response. |
Frank McCabe |
Issue with top-down and bottom-up semantics
|
No new information here; the Working Group has on record a long-standing objection against the requirement for OPTIONAL matching and a more recent objection against the use of an algebraic semantics | Offlist, the commenter asked to be recorded as objecting to the inclusions of OPTIONAL in SPARQL. |
Andrew Newman |
Objections to current SPARQL specification
|
Formal objection noted. See objection #bindingBased. | None. |
|