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

Re: DAWG meeting record 5 July 2005

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 12:03:45 -0500
To: kendall@monkeyfist.com
Cc: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, DAWG Mailing List <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1120842225.10719.133.camel@localhost>

On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 09:17 -0400, Kendall Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 05:42:12AM -0400, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> > I've left the question but commented out the disposition.
> > For context, DanC wasn't sure where to go with the stabil bNode issue
> > so I asked "of the +1s and +.5s, who is willing to postpone so long
> > was we don't do something with the syntax that makes it difficult.
> > I recall positive sounds from LeeF, SteveH, Elias, and PatH. I don't
> > recall your or Souri's responses. Unfortunately, the scribe (me) was
> > busy talking and failed to write it down.
> Which, as I tried to suggest, seems like kinda thin grounds for the claimed
> consensus.

Since "consensus" is often understood as a synonym for "resolved",
and I don't think EricP meant to put a question formally to the WG,
let's leave out that bit.

> I realize that people's pants are on fire to go to LC, but there's an issue
> here that at the very least the WG hasn't considered fully enough yet (or
> hadn't, at the *very* least, till recently).
> I for one would rather postpone LC for a bit (even if only for the past
> week!) and consider this issue *now*, than to get slammed by folks during LC
> for not having a coherent position.

My take is that we have introduced a couple more actions in the
critical path before LC (to investigate a requirement something
like "it must be possible for a client to refer to a bnode provided by
a server"), but whether or not they result in undoing the
existing (28 June) decision to go to LC remains to be seen.

I edited the minutes as follows:


Revision 1.6 Fri Jul 8 16:55:52 2005 UTC 
Changes since 1.5: +28 -83 lines

- struck "decision is vacated"
- removed "from memory" consensus stuff
- separated result set discussion as its own agendum
- moved IRI action under SPARQL QL
- moved see also after contents/agenda
- removed summary of actions,
  since it wasn't quite right and I don't
  want to bother to regenerate it
- cleaned up item 1 admin; fixed in-your-face URIs
- explicitly continued a few actions from the agenda
- refined address/sig

> As others have pointed out, as people start using SPARQL in anger, some of
> them are raising this issue.
> Forewarned is forearmed, or some such.
> Kendall Clark
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 8 July 2005 17:03:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:48 UTC