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

Re: SPARQL WG - 2009-12-22 Agenda

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:05:47 +0000
Cc: "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A93855B5-FC74-4597-AD25-19BDD7D84C79@deri.org>
To: "Polleres, Axel" <axel.polleres@deri.org>
As input to item 
>    Review Document Review Readiness (and maybe already done comments):
on the aganda, I tried to summarise the status of the various documents:

Summary of document status and reviewers:

General:
- Layout problems on the server?
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009OctDec/0628.html


I) Query:
=========
http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml

looks ok for review.

Reviewers: Birte, Matt Souri, Axel 

- Olivier's comments? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009OctDec/0634.html
 Negation in FILTERs (EXISTS, NOT EXISTS)? Does it add Expressivity?

Some details:
1) 
"The structure of this document will change to full integrate the new features"
->
"The structure of this document will change to fully integrate the new features"

2) 
- I still suggest to include a rough changelog, marked as such, or was 
the conclusion we need none, since this is the first integrated
document? I'd still suggest to describe the changes re:FPWD on a high
level in a few sentences.

II) Update:
===========

 http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/update-1.1/Overview.xml

looks ok for review.

Reviewers: AndyS, Axel 

1) Based on this mail:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009OctDec/0628.html
- Can we clos some issues?
- Is this a basis for the changelog?

III) Protocol:
==============
http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/protocol-1.1/

Will there be a new version in this round?
Report back from Lee, David needed.

IV) Service Description:
=========================
http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/service-description-1.1/

looks ok for review.

Reviewers: David, Alex, Axel

- Changelog (I'd suggest to put this under an own subheading):
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009OctDec/0614.html

- Entailment URIs discussion:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009OctDec/0627.html

http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/http-rdf-update/

V) Uniform HTTP Protocol for Managing RDF Graphs:
==============================================
http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/http-rdf-update/

ok for review?

reviewers: AndyS, LeeF, Axel 

- changelog to be included in the document:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009OctDec/0609.html

- no table of contents.

VI) PropertyPaths:
==================

looks ok for review. this would be FPWD?

Reviewers: Souri, Ivan, Lee, Axel

- Ivan's comments 
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009OctDec/0623.html

- shall we reference the time allowed features that might go into
  query in the end from Query? (to make readers aware)

VII) Entailment:
================

looks ok for review.

Reviewers: Ivan, Axel

- Ivan's comments
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009OctDec/0625.html
- Olivier's comments
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009OctDec/0636.html
Received on Tuesday, 22 December 2009 10:06:21 GMT

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