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

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

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 16:47:28 +0100
Cc: "Lee Feigenbaum" <lee@thefigtrees.net>, "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <9F1AA286-0137-4199-90B0-E1313EC656F0@deri.org>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>

On 27 Jul 2010, at 14:53, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> 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.


Ok, the usual way to do this would be just to make the respective 
section "Informative", wouldn't it?

Axel
 


>         Andy
> 
> >
> >> The grammar includes SERVICE and BINDINGS anyway.
> >
> > OK.
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 27 July 2010 15:48:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:43 GMT