- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 23:09:30 -0500
- To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- Cc: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 20:18 -0500, Gregory Williams wrote: > On Nov 30, 2011, at 5:58 PM, Axel Polleres wrote: > > >> So it sounds like (given this and Greg's report [1]), we might well be > >> able to skip CR, except for ER, but we might not want to, because we > >> want to improve our test suite and give the community a chance to > >> participate in the before-REC process. > > > > </chair> At the time being, I tend to agree with the latter, ie. I'd rather keep > > at least a short CR phase, given that we manage to get our core specs out by Christmas. > > <chair> > > > > Any more opinions on that one? > > I tend to agree, while very much hoping that CR is short. From the sound of things, though, I suspect that between ARQ, RDF::Query, rasqal, and Sesame, there's probably good coverage of at least Query, Update, and Protocol. The only document that I'm concerned about is entailment, but that could just be because I'm not as familiar with systems doing entailment. So.... what about Service Description? There are several elements of implementation here. Ideally, I'd like to see not just multiple servers providing descriptions, but multiple clients consuming those descriptions, doing the right things with them. I'm not sure what those things are... have we defined things clients are supposed to do based on Service Descriptions? The one bit of client functionality you and I have talked about is with ER: for that, it would be good to see clients which can select among multiple endpoints based on the entailment regimes they provide on the same dataset. -- Sandro
Received on Thursday, 1 December 2011 04:09:40 UTC