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

Re: Comment: SPARQL Query conformance section

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 09:31:40 -0500
To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1130164300.27261.250.camel@dirk>

On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 09:38 -0400, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> We have a coment asking for a conformancy section in SPARQL Query:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Jul/0027
> 
> DanC, you hvae argued that we should leave conformance to the protocol
> spec (or an argument near that).

I've argued that the QL spec should specify conformance of documents
and answers to the QL syntax and semantics,
and that the protocol spec should specify conformance to the protocol.

>  I think the WG has tacitly or
> activley agreed. Could you send mail to the commentor arguing your
> position?

No; I think the comment is editorial; it's asking for a different
form of emphasis on the conformance stuff. I leave that to
the editors.

p.s. if you want to send mail that I notice as addressed to me
in particular, don't use danc@w3.org; use connolly@w3.org

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 24 October 2005 14:31:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:24 GMT