W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: PROPOSED: that SPARQL advance to CR

From: <souripriya.das@oracle.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 14:45:11 -0500
Message-ID: <4426EF47.2080102@oracle.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: eric@w3.org, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Dan,

Thanks for clarifying the process, specifically that old issues cannot 
be re-argued once we enter CR.
I am trying hard to get it to a stage where I can vote YES for the 
transition. But, I do need to first get an okay from folks in my 
organization.

In the mean time, I have prepared the attached write-up for use in 
communicating with Fred Zemke regarding his comments that have so far 
not been responded to specifically, 4 major technical comments and 6 
minor technical comments. Also, I did not see any response to his 
editorial comments. Regarding blank nodes, although already answered, I 
thought Pat Hayes' draft response for that was written very well and can 
be communicated to him. Btw, is it okay for non-DAWG members to see 
e-mails exchanged inside DAWG? I know those are public, but ...

Thanks,
- Souri.

Dan Connolly wrote:

>On Sat, 2006-03-25 at 10:33 -0500, souripriya.das@oracle.com wrote:
>  
>
>>Two things:
>>
>>1) I need more time to discuss this within Oracle. 
>>    
>>
>
>How much more time?
>
>  
>
>>2) I need a confirmation of my following understanding of the process:
>>A "YES" vote from me at this point for transition to CR does not
>>prevent Oracle from raising new issues or pursuing further any of the
>>issues that have been raised earlier by Oracle folks even after the
>>SPARQL documents move to the CR phase. Thus, for example, if Fred
>>Zemke wants to pursue some of his earlier comments further, even after
>>SPARQL documents move to CR with my "YES" vote, he will be allowed to
>>do that (that is, he will not be prevented from doing that based on
>>any technicalities of the W3C process).
>>    
>>
>
>If Oracle finds _new_ information after we enter CR, then the
>WG is obliged to consider it.
>
>But Fred's earlier comments will not be new information with respect
>to the CR decision we're making this week. Once we have made
>this decision (assuming we do make it), it will not be in order
>to go back over them without new information.
>
>So we need to know if they've been handled to your satisfaction.
>
>  
>
>>>Please indicate your support (or otherwise) via this form:
>>>  http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35463/crq349/
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>





Received on Sunday, 26 March 2006 19:45:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:25 GMT