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

Re: SPARQL comments

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 17:20:05 -0400
Cc: "Andy Seaborne" <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <79A01870-6E3B-4117-A5DC-B76EFFC8075C@deri.org>
To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Dave, 

On 8 Jun 2011, at 11:11, David Wood wrote:

> On Jun 8, 2011, at 09:44, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> > On 08/06/11 01:31, David Wood wrote:
> >> I have heard that the SPARQL WG is not particularly interested in
> >> addressing substantive comments.


I am missing context here a bit and this is a bit surprising. 
Can you provide this context?

As Andy mentions, there are reasons which prevent us from answering all 
comments immediately, but the group is adequately addressing and keeping 
track of comments we get over the official channels (comments-list).
If you have any contrary indications, please point us to concrete problems.

Thank you & best regards,
Axel

On 8 Jun 2011, at 11:11, David Wood wrote:

> On Jun 8, 2011, at 09:44, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> > On 08/06/11 01:31, David Wood wrote:
> >> I have heard that the SPARQL WG is not particularly interested in
> >> addressing substantive comments.
> >
> > Really?
> 
> Yes, but that doesn't mean the comments I have heard are authoritative.
> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> 
> 
> >
> > SPARQL-WG is in Last Call.  I can't speak for the group, but I, for one, take comments seriously.
> >
> > (Someone (here at SemTech) has wondered why it takes the WG (any WG) so long to respond to comments but it is because it is a group-agreed response, not an individual response from an editor which was their impression.)
> >
> >       Andy
> >
> 
> 
> 
Received on Saturday, 11 June 2011 05:24:39 GMT

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