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

Re: SPARQL TC 2012-09-11

From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:53:06 -0400
Cc: "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F0D697F0-1E0F-459D-8A0C-570CBD60CDF5@evilfunhouse.com>
To: "Polleres, Axel" <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
On Sep 11, 2012, at 1:51 AM, Polleres, Axel wrote:

> 2)RC-2 (you rersponded) also has still opposing voices from Richard http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Sep/0008.html <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Sep/0008.html>

I talked with Lee a bit last week about trying to talk to Richard a bit offline to see if we can discuss his concerns a bit more. I haven't gotten to that yet, but happy to do it.

.greg

> * 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/2012JulSep/0164.html>

AFAIK we don't have 2 full implementations. That being said, I think the protocol tests have stabilized, so would love to see other implementation reports.

> * Service Description: ready for PR/CR?
> 
>   Question: do we have 2 full implementations? (otherwise I'd suggest to go for CR)

We have 2 implementations.

> * Federated Query: ready for PR/CR?
> 
>   Question: do we have 2 full implementations? (otherwise I'd suggest to go for CR)

We have 3 implementations.

.greg
Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2012 13:53:38 GMT

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