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 12:18:03 +0000
Cc: "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E8CD32BB-0385-4057-99FB-91BBC9D4D117@deri.org>
To: "Andy Seaborne" <andy.seaborne@talis.com>

On 22 Dec 2009, at 12:02, Andy Seaborne wrote:

> 
> 
> 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?

I was having in mind just to mark the respective paragraph mentioning 
the new materials consistently in all documents under a separate 
subsection "Changelog" to have it visible at once in the TOC?
That doesn't necessarily mean more detail, but just setting it visually apart.

 
> 
> > 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.
> 

I was thinking whether we should - for ease of reference - include a link to the property path
draft in the query document, since it may become part of this doc in the final version, i.e. something like:

"Future versions of this document may also incorporate additional time permitting features the group is 
currently working on [pointer to charter?]: 
* [http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-sparql-features-20090702/#Language_syntax Additions to the query language syntax]
* [http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-sparql-features-20090702/#Property_paths Property paths]
* [http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-sparql-features-20090702/#Commonly_used_functions Commonly Used SPARQL Functions]
* [http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-sparql-features-20090702/#Basic_federated_query Basic Federated Query]
Since these features may be abandoned if the Working Group has insufficient time or resources, those are kept in separate drafts at the moment [pointer to property paths]."


>         Andy
> 
> PS http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/WG-Documents could be used to
> track reviewing.
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 22 December 2009 12:18:36 GMT

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