W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > August 2005

Re: SPARQL Query Results XML Format: XML 1.1 [CLOSED]

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 16:19:33 +0100 (BST)
To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0508161618070.25076@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Dave Beckett wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-08-10 at 08:55 -0400, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-08-10 at 10:35 +0100, Dave Beckett wrote:
> 
> ...
> > > The DAWG discussed this and how about we add a new paragraph based on
> > > the words you give above to the results spec section 4 XML Schemas:
> > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-rdf-sparql-XMLres-20050801/#schemas
> > > 
> > >   For XML 1.1 documents, the method described in
> > >   *Processing XML 1.1 documents with XML Schema 1.0 processors*
> > >   http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-xml11schema10-20050511/
> > >   MAY be used.
> > 
> > Thank you.
> > 
> > > I'm wondering though, how making a REC-track doc point normatively
> > > to a WG Note works?
> > 
> > This depends on how comfortable the group feels about normatively
> > referencing a document that did not follow the REC-track. Since the WG
> > Note is not a REc, your paragraph itself could be informative, thus
> > making the referencing to the WG Note informative.
> 
> OK, so I'll propose to the WG that I add the words above as an
> informative note in section 4 and then add a new informative reference
> to the document to address your issue.  Would that satisfy your comment?

The working group agreed to this change and I will add it to the next 
draft of the sparql results WD.  Thanks for you comment.

Dave
Received on Tuesday, 16 August 2005 15:19:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:49 GMT