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: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 08:40:12 -0500
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1096551611.5269.119.camel@dirk>
On Thu, 2004-09-30 at 04:42, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> Dan,
> 
> > 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
> variables.

Yes, that's the issue, no? Hmm... I can't confirm from any
records, but that's the issue I mean for the WG to consider.

> How about "multpleQueriesPerRequest" which is more neutral to the
> interactions?

That's not something I'm inclined to make an issue out of;
that's sort of an obviously available design choice. The
WG will either choose it or not in due course; I don't feel
it's worth me tracking it.

Hmm... I'm not sure what to do here... perhaps our
discussion re #nestedOptionals will address the
#cascadedQueries issue as well.



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

DISTINCT and LIMIT were in the issues appendix of rq23 at the
point when I copied that list to DataAccess/issues. I gather
they're issues the editors are thinking about, but I haven't
acknowledged them as WG issues. They're not under prefixSyntax,
just after it. But I agree that's confusing, so for now I've
struck them.


> >   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues

now $Id: issues.html,v 1.22 2004/09/30 13:30:13 connolly Exp $

-- 
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 13:40:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:20 GMT