W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: To all SPARQL editores! issues/schedule for next publication round...

From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:00:18 +0100
Message-ID: <k2i492f2b0b1004270300v21b8a764w6dfe3b3db14764f@mail.gmail.com>
To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 25 April 2010 16:31, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org> wrote:
> Dear Editors,
>
> since we want to make a round through all document editors in the upcoming Telco.
> We had agreed on aiming at a next publication round mid May, which means we need to get
> to reviewing soon.
>
> Could you please send a mail to the list - if possible prior to the upcoming call - summarising:
>
> 1) Status of your document regarding implementation of decisions made at F2F3

I am currently adding an informative section about canonicalisation of
data values and what effect that has on D-Entailment. We discussed
this shortly at F2F3.

I still have to update the conditions 1 and 4 for extensions of BGP
mapping to reflect the recent changes there. That might require some
minor adaptations in the text, but nothing essential will change from
the non-RIF regimes. For the RIF (Safe Core) regime, Chime will know
better what effects that has.

We also shortly discussed a new entailment regime, which is
D-Entailment minus RDFS "Data Value entailment".  I am not sure when
I'll find the time to work on that because there is no predefined
entailment relation that can just be reused as for the other regimes.
It is not hard to see what we want there, but writing it up properly
could take some time. I don't consider that essential for a next
public working draft.

Other than that everything is in good shape at least for my part of the doc.

> 2) Is the document ready for review? yes/no - if no, estimation by when?

It could be reviewed now, but I'll try to finish the informative
section and the changes for the adapted conditions in the next couple
of days.

> 3) Open issues for publication of next draft? (planned pub date mid may)

For RIF, Chime knows better. For my part all seems ok.

> 4) Open issues for getting to last call ( if different from 3) )

The D-Entailment - RDFS regime has to be written if we want it to be included.

Birte

>
> Responsibilities:
> =================
> Query - andy,steve
> Property paths - Andy (will PP be integrated with query in the next draft?)
> Update - paul, alex
> Entailment - birte, chime
> Service description - greg
> HTTP-update - chime
> Protocol - David, Lee
> =====================
>
> Other open questions for next round:
>  - Should we publish Fed separately as FPWD?
>  - (How) shall we publish the testcases description?
>
> Thanks,
> Axel
>
>
>



-- 
Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 306
Computing Laboratory
Parks Road
Oxford
OX1 3QD
United Kingdom
+44 (0)1865 283529
Received on Tuesday, 27 April 2010 10:00:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:42 GMT