W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: New unaddressed comments updated! Please check!

From: Chimezie Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 00:34:36 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTindiFsTtt1-nDQ0_Vdg9u2TargD9eShvVdNK8jm@mail.gmail.com>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I updated  the comments page:
>  http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Comments
> Particularly, we have new unassigned comments on:
>  SPARQL 1.1 Uniform HTTP Protocol:  GR-1, GR-2, KK-6, GR-3

I had some difficulty addressing GR-1 and GR-2 (as my draft response
indicates).  In particular, I was unable to completely distill out
Greggs substantive issues (beyond his concern about 'RDF knowledge',
which is addressed by the terminology change I agreed to).  I was also
unable to (in every case) identify those issues that had to do with
the specification he was commenting on rather than with fundamental
principles of the semantic web activity standards as a whole (such as
the use of model theory to determine the meaning of RDF graphs, the
notion that IRIs identify 'resources', open world assumption, etc.).
My draft responses for both of these is below:


Both KK-6 and GR-3 seem to have more to do with SPARQL 1.1 Update.  I
agree with Greggs response in GR-3 which (by my reading) indicates
that he believes no change is needed in what the response to a DELETE
to a non-existent graph is.  I'm not sure what the procedure is in
this case.  Do, I respond to GR-3 indicating that the reasoning there
reflects why (the editor thinks) no change is necessary and ask if
Kjetil is satisfied with it?

-- Chime
Received on Tuesday, 25 January 2011 06:02:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:03 UTC