As we discussed on last week's teleconference, I'm eager to come to a resolution on the question of what sort of negation support to include in SPARQL 1.1. To that end, here is what I am planning to resolve the issue: 1) Allow for any further discussion on the mailing list the rest of this week 2) Barring unanimity or clear ocnsensus from #1, , publish a Web survey for WG members to vote on a resolution to this issue. (This is officially ISSUE-29 - http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/29) 3) Ask the editors to implement the majority preference of the Working Group as per #2. To help facilitate discussion this week, these are the latest discussions of the issue: * Concerns and discussion over the F2F3 decision on negation: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010AprJun/0003.html ** And in particular some specific cases: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010AprJun/0028.html * My summary of six potential options forward: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010AprJun/0027.html If this process results in a conclusion that is unsatisfactory for any WG members, they are (as always), welcome to ask for a subsequent review of their concerns by registering a formal objection [1], which will be reviewed when we are ready to advance the Query specification. thanks, Lee [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#FormalObjectionReceived on Monday, 19 April 2010 15:25:20 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:42 GMT