W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: Features & rationale shortname

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:43:39 +0100
Message-ID: <4A375B3B.6000005@deri.org>
To: Kjetil Kjernsmo <Kjetil.Kjernsmo@computas.com>
CC: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
> Axel wrote:
>  > Proposed strawman:
>  >   http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql-features/
> 
> That's OK, but I've felt that we need to version our combined efforts, 
> and this is an example of why; there can sure be a WG after us that will 
> produce a similar document, so perhaps sparql-11-features?

Since we talk about both sparql/query 1.1 and sparql/update 1.0, I am 
unsure. It is clear that we might need versioning for the query and 
protocol docs, i.e.

http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/
-->
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query11/

http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-protocol/
-->
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-protocol11/

but where there is no prior document, I guess we wouldn't need that.

Another question is rather whether we want to keep the prefix
"rdf-"

i.e.

http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql-features/
vs.
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-features/

Personally, I still prefer the former, if there is no conflict with 
that, but there may well be other opinions?!?

Especially team contact opinions would be appreciated!

best,
Axel


-- 
Dr. Axel Polleres
Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland, 
Galway
email: axel.polleres@deri.org  url: http://www.polleres.net/
Received on Tuesday, 16 June 2009 08:44:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:39 GMT