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

Re: tomorrow's agenda (and initial open ISSUES summary.. )

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 14:53:09 +0100
Message-ID: <4C4EE4C5.8040402@epimorphics.com>
To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
CC: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

On 27/07/2010 2:24 PM, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
> On 7/26/2010 1:02 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>> =======================================================================
>>> ISSUE-1
>>> How to specify BasicFederatedQuery in a way that acknowledges optional
>>> nature of feature& security issues
>>> Anybody has a proposal on this?
>>> My proposal would be to just keep it in a separate document and mark
>>> it as "SHOULD" or "MAY be implemented" plus tie it to a feature in sd:
>> I thought we had decided that, on balance, it would go in the query doc.
>> It would be edited separately for now but merged in when stable.
> I thought that the optionality (?) of the whole thing was still up in
> the air? Though there was a leaning towards making SERVICE optional and
> BINDINGS required?

That's my recollection so BINDINGS is definitely in the query doc.  IIRC 
we decided that, on balance, if it's just SERVICE, then a whole doc for 
it would be appreciable overhead and not enough benefit - an initial 
para say "optional feature" is sufficient.


>> The grammar includes SERVICE and BINDINGS anyway.
> OK.
Received on Tuesday, 27 July 2010 13:53:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:01 UTC