W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: Agenda: SPARQL TC today

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 11:51:15 +0100
Message-ID: <4FCDE4A3.6080609@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org


On 05/06/12 07:49, Polleres, Axel wrote:
> As per last week's minutes, we plan a short telecon checking on actions and try to make make progress where we can, particularly, I suggest to quickly run through http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/To_PR through the docs that weren't covered last week. If the editors could check the resp. sections and add any items/open comments they are ware of, that'd help!
>
> Accordingly:
>
> 1) ACTION review
> 2) Run through http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/To_PR
> *                Update,
> *                Entailment
> *                2 x Result formats
> 3) Comments... My question would be whether or not we need to treat those two as official comments:
>       http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Jun/0001.html (went to several lists at once)
>       http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Jun/0002.html (already informally answered by Andy)

Yes, please clarify - it was not clear as to whether it was a comment on 
the spec or a discussion point, I leant heavily on:

"Clarification please?"

and treated it as discussion.  It's also SPARQL 1.0 and refers to 
implementation behaviour but we don't police implementations.

	Andy

>
>
> Best,
> Axel
>
> --
> Dr. Axel Polleres
> Siemens AG Ísterreich
> Corporate Technology Central Eastern Europe Research&  Technologies
> CT T CEE
>
> Tel.: +43 (0) 51707-36983
> Mobile: +43 (0) 664 88550859
> Fax: +43 (0) 51707-56682 mailto:axel.polleres@siemens.com
>
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2012 10:51:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:48 GMT