W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > January 2006

[OK?] Re: [comments] SPARQL Protocol against QA SpecGL ICS

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:48:27 -0500
Message-Id: <0064B43D-AFB2-49ED-9BE3-2F35CED5ED24@monkeyfist.com>
Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>

On Oct 11, 2005, at 6:17 PM, Karl Dubost wrote:

> This is a review of  "SPARQL Protocol" against QA SpecGL ICS.
> SPARQL Protocol for RDF
> W3C Working Draft 14 September 2005
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-rdf-sparql-protocol-20050914/
> First of all, I'm unpleasantly surprised that there is no  
> conformance section in the document nor a reference to a document  
> where this conformance would be defined.

As of the latest editor's draft there is a conformance section:


> # QA Specification Guidelines - Implementation Conformance Statement
> This version: [http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/REC-qaframe-spec-20050817/ 
> specgl-ics][3]


> [Requirement 01: Include a conformance clause.][22]
>     NO and no reference to a document which would contain such a  
> section.


> [Requirement 02: Define the scope.][29]
>     YES. but very little one. The scope section could be a little  
> more detailed. Look at the techniques.


> [Requirement 03: Identify who and/or what will implement the  
> specification.][32]
>     NO. The "classes of products" are not identified, which will  
> make it difficult to create a conformance clause.


> [Requirement 06: Create conformance labels for each part of the  
> conformance model.][37]
>     NO. The conformance section is not defined.


> [Requirement 08: Indicate which conformance requirements are  
> mandatory, which are recommended, and which are optional.][41]
>     NO.  if we consider the fact you are using RFC 2119, we could  
> say yes, but there's also the fact that you do not define which  
> sections in your document is normative or not normative.


> [Requirement 11: Address Extensibility.][52]
>     NO. This has not been addressed at all. Create a section on  
> extensibility and explain the extensibility, requirements or your  
> language. If it's not extensible, say it. (As a side comment,  
> extensibility as it is defined in QA, not TAG ;)  to avoid  
> misunderstanding)

Done (also relying on WSDL 2.0 here).

Please let us know whether this responds sufficiently to yr comments.

Kendall Clark
Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2006 21:48:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:52:07 UTC