W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: comments on SPARQL QL, protocol, rf1, tests, requirements from outside the WG

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:46:16 -0500
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1113356776.4891.243.camel@localhost>

On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 21:03 -0400, Bijan Parsia wrote:
> On Apr 12, 2005, at 4:50 PM, Dan Connolly wrote:
> >  In post-telcon discussion, I told Andy that I'd answered many of the 
> > comments, and I'd tell him which ones I have not answered. So here's a 
> > list, in roughly newest-first order, back to about 23 March. I presume 
> > the 31 March
> [snip]
> I'm v. overtired, but I've seen no mention of the many issues I've 
> raised with regard to the formal bits, including the fact that I 
> believe, at the moment, that any bnodes in the query graph will make 
> the query fail.

My message was about comments from outside the WG. You're
inside the WG.

> Are these all considered editorial? If so, I'd like some mention of 
> that fact, and an indication that they've been dispatched to the 
> editors.

Your comments are on the editors' todo list...

"EP and AFS ack daveb's comments and bijan's"
 -- http://www.w3.org/2005/04/12-dawg-irc

We didn't discuss them in substance on the teleconference, but
that doesn't mean I think they're strictly editorial. I'll keep
an eye out for things that are substantive and conflict with earlier
decisions, and schedule discussion of those.

For things that the WG hasn't decided, even if they're substantive,
the editors are free to incorporate design changes.

> I would also like to know the normative status of various bits of the 
> spec. Which trumps, definitions or main body text?

The goal is that they're consistent. If they conflict, there's
a bug. I'm disinclined to say, as a matter of policy, where
the bug is.

> Cheers,
> Bijan.
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2005 01:46:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:47 UTC