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

Re: PROPOSED: that SPARQL advance to CR

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 15:20:30 -0600
To: "souripriya.das@oracle.com" <souripriya.das@oracle.com>
Cc: eric@w3.org, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1143408031.12963.646.camel@dirk.w3.org>

On Sun, 2006-03-26 at 14:45 -0500, souripriya.das@oracle.com wrote:
> 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.

OK, very well.
> 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.


About "major technical: underspecified errors," we withdrew
my action in the 21 Mar meeting.

>  Also, I did not see any response to his editorial comments.

I take it you mean

editorial comments on SPARQL Query Lanuage for RDF Fred Zemke (Thursday,
12 January)

While we didn't write a complete OK? message, I see that those comments
did get at least some consideration; for example, I see in the editor's

Revision 1.634  2006/02/03 18:51:47  aseaborne
Editorial changes in response to 2006Jan/0061
(part 3)

~ ensured its says "group graph pattern" everywhere, not "group pattern"
~ 4.1. - mention braces earlier
~ 5. Removed "semi-structured" text
~ 7 "comprising of" / "consisting of"
~ s/named variables/variables/g


Revision 1.631  2006/02/01 15:17:15  aseaborne
Editorial changes in response to 2006Jan/0061 (part 1)

~ Changed titles of 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 to not use the word "term"
~ Chnaged 2.1.X from "Syntax of" to "Syntax for"
~ Explictly say prefixes do not need to correspond with the serialization
  of the data
~ Link to VARNAME in "2.1.3 Syntax of Variables"
~ Edited intro sentence in 2.6

 -- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#chlog

>  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?

Absolutely, yes.

>  I know those are public,


You're more than welcome to refer to any of the proceedings of
this WG in your discussion with Fred.

>  but ...

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Sunday, 26 March 2006 21:20:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:50 UTC