W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > June 2011

Re: [AL] agenda 8 Jun telecon

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 14:36:50 +0100
Message-ID: <4DEF7AF2.7090907@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org


On 08/06/11 09:20, Steve Harris wrote:
> On 2011-06-08, at 01:31, David Wood wrote:
>
>> On Jun 7, 2011, at 14:20, Guus Schreiber wrote:
>>
>>> See
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.06.08
>>>
>>> Two questions:
>>>
>>> 1. SPARQL LC: any progress we can report on the reviews on behalf
>>> of the WG?
>>
>>
>> Our most substantive comments will relate to the string
>> representation issues.  We seem to be approaching a consensus to
>> remove the differences between string representations from the
>> abstract (but not surface) syntax, but aren't there yet.
>>
>> If we can get there in time, we have the possibility of suggesting
>> some minor changes to SPARQL.  If not, we will have to live with
>> their decisions when it comes time for us to produce the Turtle
>> documents.  I'd surely prefer to have SPARQL and Turtle agree, but
>> would also like to address the string issues.
>>
>> I have heard that the SPARQL WG is not particularly interested in
>> addressing substantive comments.  Although I understand that from a
>> process standpoint, we shouldn't let process dictate progress if we
>> have something real to say.  I personally think alignment between
>> Turtle and SPARQL trumps the SPARQL WG's timing, but we may need to
>> convince them of that.
>
> The places in the SPARQL documents that are likely to be touched by a
> change in this area are marked as "volatile" (sorry, I don't remember
> the exact wording), so there should be no problem as long as the
> change isn't too invasive to SPARQL.
>
> I agree that harmonising RDF abstract syntax, Turtle, and SPARQL
> should be a priority.

+1

but as we seem to be close to consensus on strings here in RDF-WG I 
don't see it as much of an issue anyway.

One choice is, of course, to not add new features to Turtle that cause 
it to diverge from submission-Turtle which is closely aligned to SPARQL 
already.

	Andy
>
> - Steve
>
Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2011 13:47:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:44 GMT