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

[Fwd: Sparql editorial comment: acknowledge prior art]

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 16:57:13 +0100
Message-ID: <42ECF4D9.50304@hp.com>
To: 'RDF Data Access Working Group' <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

Is it normal to have an acknowledgement of prior art section in a W3C 
recommendation?  A quick scan of other recs suggests that it is not.  Any 
acknowledgements sections seem to be acknowledgements to the WG process, not 
to prior art.

As this is not an academic paper, I propose continuing to not have a prior 
art section.

In practical terms there are real problems: in SPARQL there are ideas that 
were independently invented/suggested by more than one party, ideas that 
started in personal email many years before the WG started and ideas that 
have morphed so much form the initial idea as to be distinctly different. 
We have already had a similar request for references to non-RDF query 
systems.  The only consist and fair policy is to have no such section.

	Andy

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Sparql editorial comment: acknowledge prior art
Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:50:12 +0000
Resent-From: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 17:50:04 +0200
From: Jacco van Ossenbruggen <Jacco.van.Ossenbruggen@cwi.nl>
To: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org


Dear editors,

SPARQL has been built on the experience gained from various other (RDF)
query languages.
I think it would be fair to acknowledge this work in the SPARQL
specification.

Regards,

Jacco van Ossenbruggen
Received on Sunday, 31 July 2005 15:57:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:23 GMT