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

Re: SPARQL WG - 2009-12-22 Agenda

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:02:20 +0000
Message-ID: <4B30B54C.6000900@talis.com>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>


On 22/12/2009 10:05, Axel Polleres wrote:
> I) Query:
> =========
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml
>
> looks ok for review.

I welcome reviews but I'm still hoping to improve the text for the 
sections I'm authoring.

>
> 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.

The status section notes the additional material.  How much detail do 
you want?

> 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)

I don't understand that sentence.

	Andy

PS http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/WG-Documents could be used to 
track reviewing.
Received on Tuesday, 22 December 2009 12:02:42 GMT

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