- From: Chimezie Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:59:16 -0400
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, sparQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
+1 I think it is a good idea as well. I can make that change now unless we want to have a formal resolution to do so (in the same way we had one to make the initial change). On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote: > On Wed, 2011-03-23 at 11:56 +0000, Axel Polleres wrote: >> On 22 Mar 2011, at 16:21, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> >> > >> > >> > On 22/03/11 15:15, Steve Harris wrote: >> > > I think it's a good idea, the current name is a bit misleading. >> > >> > +1 >> >> +1, likewise > > +1, which I sort of said before this thread started. > > - s > >> >> Axel >> >> > > >> > > - Steve >> > > >> > > On 2011-03-22, at 14:48, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: >> > > >> > >> Based on recent conversations, there has been suggestions that since the dataset protocol is defined against (mutable) graph stores, the name we chose in http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2011-01-25#resolution_3, that we change the name to reflect this. >> > >> >> > >> The current name is: >> > >> >> > >> SPARQL 1.1 RDF Dataset HTTP Protocol >> > >> >> > >> I'd imagine the alternative name would be: >> > >> >> > >> SPARQL 1.1 Graph Store HTTP Protocol >> > >> >> > >> Please use this thread to express support or concern about this proposed change. We'll make a final decision on the name next Tuesday, and I promise that we won't then revisit it again. :-) >> > >> >> > >> Lee >> > >> >> > > >> > >> > >> >> >> > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2011 16:00:09 UTC