W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > May 2007

Re: DESCRIBE status Re: Comments on SPARQL WD

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 14:38:51 -0500
Message-ID: <463B8BCB.50207@w3.org>
To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Cc: www-archive@w3.org

Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> * Lee Feigenbaum <feigenbl@us.ibm.com> [2007-05-03 00:28-0400]
>> Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote on 04/17/2007 07:32:01 PM:
>>
>>> On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 17:11 -0400, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> While I have a tiny bit of your attention, I was wondering if your 
>>>> objection to DESCRIBE still holds, given that DESCRIBE is now an 
>>>> informative part of the spec.
>>> Really? that's news to me. I hear it was at-risk, not non-normative.
>> I've had a bit of trouble following the paper trail, but I don't believe 
>> it was ever at-risk. In terms of published drafts, it's been marked 
>> informative since the March 2006 CR publication.
> 
> I urge you to withdraw the objection. I can't defend lying down in the
> road over DESCRIBE.

I think you already have defended it; that is: The Director
considered this objection earlier when granting CR for SPARQL,
and there's no new information, so there's no reason for him to
consider it again.

I still think it's really bad to have it in the same language as
the rest of SPARQL.

I also think the current spec is goofy when it has DESCRIBE
labelled informative in some places but it's included in the
grammar.

But OK... I guess my formal objection doesn't serve much purpose
any more. I withdraw it.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 4 May 2007 19:38:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:07 GMT