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

Re: Versioning (again, sorry!)

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 07:16:06 +0100
Message-Id: <95A5AC8B-4186-4DAA-8145-6C91A74FCFA2@garlik.com>
To: "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 8 Oct 2009, at 05:39, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:

> Paul Gearon wrote:

[snip, good description of the problem]

> So that I understand whether we're in a position to re-open this  
> topic or not, is this a theoretical "they don't get it" or an actual  
> "they don't get it"?

In Garlik at least, it's an actual problem. I think only Luke and I  
understand which versions of what part are 1.1, and which are 1.0.

The next WG will presumably have some 1.0s, some 1.1s, some 1.2s and  
maybe some 2.0s. Nice.

>> If I had to explain it to someone (and I often do) then personally  
>> I'd
>> like to say, "SPARQL 1 had two parts. The first part lets me do
>> queries, and the second part describes how to connect to a SPARQL
>> server and talk to it. SPARQL 2 also has those parts, expanding
>> significantly on the capabilities of each. It also has a third part
>> that lets me update data in a database."
>
> Yeah, this is pretty much how i've been doing it, myself, without  
> any sort of confusion that I've noticed. (See slide 3 of http://www.slideshare.net/LeeFeigenbaum/sparql2-status 
>  .)

To me, that seems like it's adding to the confusion.

I was working on Sun/Solbourne OS's in the early 90's so I have a  
natural concern about things like this happening. Encouraging this  
seems a bit too much like it's heading down the old SunOS/Solaris  
parallel versioning path. Trying to work out if software would run on  
your system could take a team of engineers, and several diagrams - I'm  
maybe exaggerating, but not by much :) ("yeah, but which 4.1")

What happens when a future working group wants to have an actual  
SPARQL/Query 2.0? Then there will be huge confusion.

I think a neutral ISO-style "SPARQL 2010" type number ( la SQL), or  
letters, or just about anything really, would be much clearer. If  
internally it's called "SPARQL/Query 2010" (for instance), then the  
peanut gallery referring to it as SPARQL2, is at least not going to be  
confused with the "real" version number.

- Steve
Received on Thursday, 8 October 2009 06:16:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:40 GMT