RE: going to REC

Another change, the example in Query, as mentioned in today's mail on the comments list
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2013Mar/0007.html 
is already corrected in the editors' draft (not sure, but I think this was already spotted earlier, or was it just corrected today? ... can't access CVS at the moment):

cf. http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#propertypath-examples
vs. http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#propertypath-examples 

best,
Axel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Polleres, Axel
> Sent: Montag, 18. März 2013 15:21
> To: Sandro Hawke; SPARQL WG
> Subject: RE: going to REC
> 
> As far as I can see, the only significant post-PR change is:
> 
>   $Log: xmlspec.xml,v $
>   Revision 1.86  2012-12-17 17:09:27  gwilliam
>   Removed unused scovo prefix in examples.
> 
> in (service description) which is editorial... see
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/service-description-1.1/xmlspec.xml
> 
> BTW: I don't find the reply to
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012Dec/0005.html
> linked in our archives... I think I remember we discussed at some point that
> the comment was implemented in the editor's draft, but I don't see the reply
> anywhere linked on our list.
> 
> Best,
> Axel
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sandro Hawke [mailto:sandro@w3.org]
> > Sent: Montag, 18. März 2013 14:16
> > To: SPARQL WG
> > Subject: going to REC
> >
> > I'm hoping the RECs will go out tomorrow.
> >
> > Has anyone made any changes since PR?   (I'll double check, but I'll
> > need an explanation)
> >
> > Does anyone know of any problems or any reason to wait?
> >
> > Does anyone have any nice text saying how great SPARQL 1.1 is, for use
> > in the announcement?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >        -- Sandro
> >
>

Received on Tuesday, 19 March 2013 13:07:01 UTC