Re: comments on Section 1 and Section 2 of SPARQL Query Language for RDF [OK?] [needstest]

On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 03:00 -0400, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> I am still awaiting a substantive response to my last-call response of 22
> February 2006 on SPARQL Query Language for RDF, W3C Working Draft 20
> February 2006, http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20060220/.
> 
> I believe that the comments in this message raise substantive technical
> issues that need to be addressed before SPARQL becomes a W3C
> recommendation.

Indeed, these are still pending.

We have started looking over them in detail, making test cases out
of the detailed examples (well, 1 of them, so far).

Also, the editors are considering some large-scale editorial
changes.

The WG is moving particularly slowly this month... taking a bit
of a holiday.

But please do stay tuned for a reply in substance.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E