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

Re: Naming - old and new SPARQL

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:51:15 +0000
Message-Id: <56B8383C-258E-4BB2-9CD5-29C56941EE4E@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 25 Mar 2009, at 21:35, Steve Harris wrote:

> On 25 Mar 2009, at 15:28, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
>>
>> possibilities?
>
>> SPARQL 1.0 -> SPARQL 1.1
>
> That would be my favourite.
>
> Putting a year in there is just asking for publication dates like  
> the 47th of December :)
>
> I agree with Andy about the negative connotations of SPARQL 2.

In the OWL WG, we started with OWL 1.1 (the submission) for pretty  
much these reasons.

Then we ended up with OWL 2.

I don't think, in general, the "major revision" stuff carries much  
weight (though I certainly used to think so :)), esp. with specs. We  
all know software that has jumped all sorts of crazy versions :)

SPARQL 2 is nice because it's simple, has a simple policy (every  
substantive addition to the main spec bumps the number), and feels good.

As for significant change, i would think that adding update alone  
would be a 2 for me. YMMV.

(I'm not pressing for this...I'm fine with 1.1. But that's because I  
don't care about names too much. I think the *argument* about major  
revision numbers is very weak.)

Pick the most marketing sensible number and move on. SPARQL PI ;)

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 25 March 2009 21:51:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:38 GMT