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

Re: Member Submission

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 10:25:52 +0100
Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4BFFF153-300E-4E71-8067-B7AD9D7782C9@garlik.com>
To: Alexandre Passant <alexandre.passant@deri.org>
On 2010-08-15, at 23:17, Alexandre Passant wrote:
> 
> On 15 Aug 2010, at 23:45, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> wrote:
> 
>> Let's look at this in the overall context of SPARQL 1.0->1.1.  While at the moment, google puts the member submission as the first hit, the SPARQL 1.1 Update is already the second hit so it seems reasonable to me that as SPARQL 1.1 finishes, or during the late stages of standardization, the order will naturally change as people pick up on SPARQL 1.1.
...

> I think we should link from the member submission to the WD / REC.
> If not, we may end up with people implementing SPARQL Update from the MS and others from the REC, which will IMO be confusing

I doubt implementors are likely to be very confused, the issue we've been seeing is users, who have no reason to understand the difference between a Member Submission and a Draft Rec. They both look W3C-y, and the member submission is close enough in syntax to be confusing, while being completely unhelpful.

- Steve

-- 
Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Monday, 16 August 2010 09:26:28 GMT

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