W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2004

RE: no need to track WG issues in SPARQL document

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 10:42:15 +0100
Message-ID: <8D5B24B83C6A2E4B9E7EE5FA82627DC939684A@sdcexcea01.emea.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "RDF Data Access Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>


> I suggest dropping the issues appendix.

Good - that is my preference.  Done.  There's a link to the issues list
in rq23.

Comments on the issues list:

1/ "cascadedQueries"

The name implies to me one query after another, maybe with flows of
How about "multpleQueriesPerRequest" which is more neutral to the

2/ PrefixSyntax has DISTINCT and LIMIT under it.  I was confused by
that.  Should it be a separate issue?


-------- Original Message --------
> From: Dan Connolly <>
> Date: 29 September 2004 23:42
> I just checked for news in the SPARQL draft
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/
> and I see $Revision: 1.67 $ with the new name,
> abstract and such. Good...
> I suggest dropping the issues appendix. Feel free to
> keep your own editor's TODO list there, but don't make it look
> like a WG issues list.
> The WG issues list is now
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues
> Note that I named all the issues, somewhat arbitrarily.
> And I merged a few since the ftf meeting (see changelog for details).
> In the future, I'll try to solicit input from the WG
> on issue names; I know they occasionally matter and they're
> expensive to change.
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 30 September 2004 09:42:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:45 UTC