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

Re: Alternative Syntaxes for BGPs

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:58:09 -0400
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
cc: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <18159.1256911089@waldron>
> On 30 Oct 2009, at 12:30, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: b.glimm@googlemail.com [mailto:b.glimm@googlemail.com] On =20
> >> Behalf Of
> >> Birte Glimm
> >> Sent: 30 October 2009 12:00
> >> To: Kendall Clark
> >> Cc: Seaborne, Andy; SPARQL Working Group
> >> Subject: Re: Alternative Syntaxes for BGPs
> >>
> >>>> It would be nice to see a member submission so that it=92s the =20
> >>>> users and
> >>>> tool makers defining this.
> >>>
> >>> So I guess you didn't see me say we're doing this in a upcoming =20
> >>> version of
> >>> Pellet, which is a relevant tool with users who've requested this =20=
> 
> >>> sort of
> >>> thing.
> >>
> >> That would apply to HermiT as well, so in that sense I do speak as
> >> tool developer too and I can't see our users happily learning triple
> >> syntax. Functional Style & Manchester syntax are quite popular.
> >
> > I quite agree it's a better syntax.
> >
> > I just though that having the users and tool developers (yes =20
> > Kendall, I had seen your message) co-submit, including all the =20
> > details, test cases, etc, would be more effective for you than a =20
> > note by some people in this WG.
> 
> After all, if the submission is robust enough, we could always pick =20
> it up and fast track it (or a subsequent group can). I guess, Andy, =20
> that you're pointing out that doing this in group at this point runs =20
> some risks even if it only adds a small amount of admin overhead =20
> (given the group resource constraints).

Perhaps it's already clear, but in case anyone doesn't know, the Member
Submission process is only for work that is outside the scope of any
working group [1].  I guess the thinking here is that it will be
determined later ("time permitting") whether or not it's in scope.  In
that case, I suppose a Member Submission would be okay, but it stikes me
as rather heavyweight.

   -- Sandro


[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/submission#SubmissionScope
Received on Friday, 30 October 2009 13:58:18 GMT

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