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

Re: SPARQL TC 2012-12-04

From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@uni-ulm.de>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 12:20:56 +0100
Message-ID: <CABt65OesUwX7KYkk-k5Tv30qap2=D+_N2_j5uTcKzZUqP9vrBw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "axel.polleres@siemens.com Polleres" <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Ok, problem solved. It turned out that resolving conflicts just works
quite different from SVN and there was some hidden conflict in my
working copy.

Birte

On 4 December 2012 12:11, Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@uni-ulm.de> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I tried to do my action of marking tests as approved, but I cannot
> commit or update to the CVS any more. I just get:
>
> The server reported an error while performing the "cvs update"
> command. (took 0:01.774)
>    Error: SPARQL: The server did not provide any additional information.
> ***
>
> which is indeed not very helpful. I tried to check out the sources
> again, with the same problem. Am I the only one who has this problem?
> Can you commit/update?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Birte
>
> On 4 December 2012 08:21, Axel Polleres <axel@polleres.net> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Looking over the last two weeks' minutes, I think we have to talk about the following things:
>>
>> 1) review ACTIONs
>> 2) decide a plan when to vote for PR/Rec, my impression is:
>>    Protocol: Exit criterion is met as per http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-11-20#resolution_3
>>    --> Ready to vote for PR
>>    GSP: Exit criterion is met as per http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-11-27#resolution_3
>>    --> Ready for PR
>>    Entailment: Exit criterion is met for all but RIF Entailment as per http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-11-27#resolution_2
>>    --> 2 alternatives:
>>          a) we go to PR now and makr RIF Entailment as informative
>>          b) we give it another week or two, but define a clear roadmap what to be done when
>>             (e.g. additional RIF test cases by next week ready for approval, passed by two engines by
>>                   in two weeks means we make RIF entailment normative, otherwise, we leave RIF entailment as
>>                   informative)
>> 3) As for the docs already in PR, I see not comments or issues that keep us from progressing to REC, but probably we want to go to REC with all docs at the same time.
>>
>> My goal would be to vote for PR for the missing docs either next week or in two weeks (also pending availability in two weeks, e.g. I am afraid, I am at risk already
>> for 18th, os personally).
>>
>> Please let me know if I missed anything!
>>
>> best,
>> Axel
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Axel Polleres
>> url: http://www.polleres.net/  twitter: AxelPolleres
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Jun. Prof. Dr. Birte Glimm            Tel.:    +49 731 50 24125
> Inst. of Artificial Intelligence         Secr:  +49 731 50 24258
> University of Ulm                         Fax:   +49 731 50 24188
> D-89069 Ulm                               birte.glimm@uni-ulm.de
> Germany



-- 
Jun. Prof. Dr. Birte Glimm            Tel.:    +49 731 50 24125
Inst. of Artificial Intelligence         Secr:  +49 731 50 24258
University of Ulm                         Fax:   +49 731 50 24188
D-89069 Ulm                               birte.glimm@uni-ulm.de
Germany
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2012 11:21:31 GMT

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