critical open ACTIONS for LC...

As for the planned action review tomorrow, I want to restrict to those potentially critical for going to LC...

here's my subjective assessment of what is potentially affecting LC readiness and which I will take as a basis to go through
(if you want to safe us TC time, let me know any of those completed before the call, thanks!):

ACTION-200: Steve to Work with Andy to add CONSTRUCT WHERE { triple pattern } shortcut to query spec
 *critical for last call*
  I just sent a proposal for that one...

ACTION-209: Steve to Disallow projected variables being reused in HAVING in the spec
 *critical for last call*

ACTION-285: Paul to Collect update security issues and report back to mailinglist regarding ISSUE-19
 *critical for LC *

ACTION-286: Lee to Add a note on dropping of SOAP binding to next WD of
protocol11 and explicitly solicit feedback on usage of SOAP in SPARQL
 *Is this critical for LC? Was it discussed in the protocol call?*

ACTION-290: Lee to Make sure that the relationship between SPARQL protocol and HTTP protocol is clearly laid out before Last Call
 *critical for LC *

ACTION-291: Work MIME type registration information into SPARQL Update document based on Sandro's suggestion for formatting etc.
 *critical for LC *

ACTION-292: Lee to Make sure text on transactionality/concurrency gets added to protocol document
 *Is this critical for LC? Was it discussed in the protocol call?*

ACTION-306: Lee to Work with Axel to identify potential editor(s) to shepherd
through JSON document on Rec track
 * if we want JSON result format then this critical for LC*
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-json-res/ anybody willing to pick this
up, otherwise I am afraid we need to let it go, NickH and several
others were quite  keen on it.
http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-09-07#JSON_Results_Format
but we didn't get any volunteers in response.

ACTION-324: carlos to Ping carlos/eric in 2-3 weeks for progress on Fed query
issues
 *critical for LC *
I guess this is a question whether this is ready for review or should
be converted into an action to summarise open questions to the group?

ACTION-328: Steve to Implement the common understanding in ListEval() on unbound treated like errors
 *critical for last call*

ACTION-331: Andy to Clarify the meaning of "potentially bound" vis a vis what
can go on the right hand side of an AS in a SELECT list
 *critical for last call*

ACTION-341: Lee to Look up how
whttp:inputSerialization="application/sparql-update" would work and
whether additional parameters could be included in the request URI
query string
  *protocol related, assume that's crtitical too.*

Received on Monday, 13 December 2010 22:48:08 UTC