W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > February 2011

Re: Comments on SPARQL 1.1 Uniform HTTP Protocol Working Draft 14 October 2010

From: Chimezie Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 11:23:18 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTikT6ZJUgxSE1aPmFaNLw6RfYVF5tD-dCSKRJVQb@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Kjetil and all.  My apologies if this response doesn't show up
conveniently as part of the thread, but for some reason my email is no
longer subscribed to this comment list and so I never received these
important messages.  See my response inline below.

On Wednesday 26, January 2011 Kjetil wrote:
> That's a better term, but I feel that we should first identify the audience of
> this spesification. Is it the thousands of developers who could implement this,
> or is it a foundational document that other authors could use to document how
> it should be done for the former group?

The audience is the same as most of the other SPARQL 1.1
specifications: for developers who will implement it and users that
will leverage it.

> Honestly, I think that the current
> document is both too opaque and not sufficiently specified to be useful to
> developers, but I also feel that the current discussion is interesting and
> important.

Can you be more specific about sections where it is opaque and
underspecified and how they can be improved?


-- Chime
Received on Wednesday, 2 February 2011 16:24:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:52:11 UTC