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

Re: SPARQL comments

From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 12:58:21 -0400
Cc: "Andy Seaborne" <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <EC2E739B-FFCC-4E0C-B446-ADACFE5949B5@3roundstones.com>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Hi Axel, et al,

It was not my intention to criticise the SPARQL WG's process.  I have no reason to believe that the SPARQL WG is not following correct process, nor that they are somehow not processing comments.  Instead, I was reporting on a rumor that may impact the process of the RDF WG as it decides how to respond to string issues that impact both SPARQL and Turtle.

Our (RDF WG) concern should be to meet the timeline set by the SPARQL WG, especially in light of summer holidays, so we don't have to live with the results of not doing so.

Sorry if that didn't come across correctly earlier.

Regards,
Dave




On Jun 10, 2011, at 17:20, Axel Polleres wrote:

> 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 19:38:17 GMT

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