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

RE: SPARQL TC 2012-09-11

From: Polleres, Axel <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 07:53:58 +0200
To: "Polleres, Axel" <axel.polleres@siemens.com>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9DA51FFE5E84464082D7A089342DEEE801463BA22BDC@ATVIES9917WMSX.ww300.siemens.net>
P.s.:

> I am a bit at risk for today's call, at least I have only
> time until 16:30.

(as I missed timezone info, I meant I can probably only stick around for 30mins, at least on the phone)

Axel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Polleres, Axel
> Sent: Dienstag, 11. September 2012 07:52
> To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
> Subject: SPARQL TC 2012-09-11
>
> Dear all,
>
> I am a bit at risk for today's call, at least I have only
> time until 16:30. So, since Lee sent regrets as well, I'd be
> looking for someone to (at least partially) helping me out
> with chairing.
>
> I know this is not optimal, but I'd still like to stick with
> the plan to vote for publications and finish up with comments
> this weeek.
>
>
> Accordingly, here's the two items of the proposed agenda:
>
>
> I) Wrap up on the last two open comments:
>
> JL-4: sandro sent the response, there were still opposing
> responses by James Leigh
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2
> 012Sep/0012.html
> but Kjetil seems to be ok
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2
> 012Sep/0011.html
> and seems to point out a solution path ( i.e. that possibly
> the LDPWG could extend our design)
>
> My take on it would be that the group decides in the Telco
> how to go on: I'd suggest that we respond alongthe lines that
> the behavior that James wants will not make it into this
> round of the spec, but maybe a future WG or the Linked Data
> Platform Working Group could take care of it (as Kjetil
> points out). We could/should put refinements of GSP in these
> direction on the Future Work Items list and we should be done, I hope.
>
> 2)RC-2 (you rersponded) also has still opposing voices from
> Richard
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2
> 012Sep/0008.html
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/
> 2012Sep/0008.html>
>
> Also here, I think we should find some solution to close the
> issue. I am not really swapped in here, so, I'd appreciate
> help/discussion on what other people think.
>
> As far as I can tell, these are the only open comments.
>
> II) Go through documents and resolve to republish as PR/CR
> where possible. We need to decide which docs can go to PR
> directly and which ones go to CR . I summarize my impression
> per document (to be confirmed by editors):
>
> * Query: ready for PR (still potentially some more Test cases
> could help for clarification of corner cases, but I think we
> have decent coverage)
>
> * Update: ready for PR
>
> * Protocol: ready for PR/CR?
>
>    Questions: a) do we have 2 full implementations?
>               b) pending resolution of RC-2
>               c) PR vs. CR. pending discussion of Carlos'
> ACTION-672 cf.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JulSep
> /0164.html
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JulSe
> p/0164.html>
>
> * Service Description: ready for PR/CR?
>
>    Question: do we have 2 full implementations? (otherwise
> I'd suggest to go for CR)
>
> * Entailment: ready for CR
>     (as confirmed by Birte last time, we won't have enough
> implementation experience tro go directly to PR here)
>
> * Federated Query: ready for PR/CR?
>
>    Question: do we have 2 full implementations? (otherwise
> I'd suggest to go for CR)
>
> * Result formats (both JSON+CSV/TSV: ready for PR
>
> * Overview: ready for PR (no implementation needed)
>
>
>
> Best regards,
> Axel
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2012 05:54:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:49 GMT