public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org from January 2006 by author

Andreas Sewe

• Re: URI serialization issues (Friday, 20 January)

Arjohn Kampman

• [Closed] Re: [Ok?] Re: SPARQL Protocol comments (editorial) (Monday, 2 January)

Axel Rauschmayer

• Re: Use Case for DESCRIBE [OK?] (Thursday, 26 January)
• Use Case for DESCRIBE (Saturday, 14 January)

Benjamin Nowack

• [CLOSED] Re: [CLOSED] Re: BASE absolute IRIs (Tuesday, 17 January)

Bjoern Hoehrmann

• Re: [OK?] Re: SPARQL: Error handling (Sunday, 29 January)
• Re: [OK?] Re: SPARQL: Error handling (Sunday, 29 January)
• Re: [OK?] Re: SPARQL Protocol: suboptimal examples (Sunday, 29 January)
• Re: [OK?] Re: SPARQL Protocol: suboptimal examples (Sunday, 29 January)
• Re: SPARQL: incorrect/confusing example in 9.3 (Sunday, 29 January)
• Re: SPARQL: Backslashes in string literals [OK?] (Sunday, 29 January)
• Re: [OK?] Re: SPARQL Protocol: suboptimal examples (Sunday, 29 January)
• Re: [OK?] Re: SPARQL: Error handling (Sunday, 29 January)
• Re: SPARQL: W3C QA Guidelines conformance (Sunday, 29 January)
• Re: [OK?] Re: SPARQL: BASE IRI resolution (Sunday, 29 January)
• Re: [OK?] Re: SPARQL: format based on Unicode? (Sunday, 29 January)
• Re: [OK?] Re: SPARQL: isURI poorly named (Sunday, 29 January)

Dan Connolly

• Re: [OK?] Re: SPARQL Protocol: suboptimal examples (Tuesday, 31 January)
• Re: [OK?] Re: SPARQL: Error handling (Monday, 30 January)
• Re: [OK?] Re: SPARQL: Error handling (Monday, 30 January)
• Re: [OK?] Re: SPARQL: Error handling (Monday, 30 January)
• Re: [OK?] Re: SPARQL: Error handling (Sunday, 29 January)
• Re: [OK?] Re: SPARQL: Error handling (Sunday, 29 January)
• Re: Use Case for DESCRIBE [CLOSED?] (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: major technical: no subqueries [OK?] (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: minor technical: are periods separators or terminators? [OK?] (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: major technical: dateTime arithmetic [OK?] (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: major technical: no privilege model [OK?] (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: Use Case for DESCRIBE [OK?] (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: Incorrect braces in Sparql test cases [OK?] (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: major technical: no aggregates [OK?] (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: HTTP Status Codes for QueryRequestRefused [OK?] (Monday, 23 January)
• Re: URI serialization issues (Thursday, 19 January)
• Re: minor technical: are periods separators or terminators? (Friday, 13 January)
• Re: minor technical comment on 2.1.3 Syntax of variables [OK?] (Thursday, 12 January)
• Re: major technical: no privilege model (Thursday, 12 January)
• Re: major technical: no aggregates (Thursday, 12 January)
• Re: major technical: no subqueries (Thursday, 12 January)
• Re: major technical: orthogonality (expressions in SELECT, ORDER BY) [OK?] (Thursday, 12 January)
• Re: major technical: blank nodes [OK?] (Thursday, 12 January)
• Re: editorial comments on SPARQL Query Lanuage for RDF (Thursday, 12 January)
• Re: SPARQL DESCRIBE (Personal comments) [OK?] [objection] (Wednesday, 11 January)
• [closed]: Protocol erratum (Wednesday, 11 January)
• [closed]: Query By Reference in SPARQL Protocol (Wednesday, 11 January)
• Re: QName production in SPARQL grammar [OK?] (Monday, 9 January)
• Re: SPARQL and Unicode versions (Sunday, 8 January)
• Re: SPARQL and Unicode versions (Sunday, 8 January)
• Re: [Fwd: SPARQL Protocol Review and Comments] (Wednesday, 4 January)
• Re: disjunction, query language, data representation ... [closed] (Wednesday, 4 January)
• Re: WSDL comments on SPARQL Protocol LC Draft [OK?] (Wednesday, 4 January)

Dave Beckett

• Re: [OK?] Re: SPARQL and Unicode versions (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: SPARQL and Unicode versions (Sunday, 8 January)
• SPARQL and Unicode versions (Saturday, 7 January)
• langMatches wording in sparql query 2005-11-23 and tests (Friday, 6 January)

David Wood

• Re: [OK?] Re: [Fwd: SPARQL Protocol Review and Comments] (Thursday, 5 January)
• Re: [Fwd: SPARQL Protocol Review and Comments] (Wednesday, 4 January)
• Re: [Fwd: SPARQL Protocol Review and Comments] (Wednesday, 4 January)

Eric Prud'hommeaux

• [CLOSED] Re: SPARQL and Unicode versions (Thursday, 26 January)
• [OK?] Re: SPARQL: format based on Unicode? (Thursday, 26 January)
• [OK?] Re: SPARQL and Unicode versions (Thursday, 26 January)
• [OK?] Re: minor technical on 11.2.1 Invocation (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: minor technical on 11.2.1 Invocation (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: [CLOSED] Re: [CLOSED] Re: BASE absolute IRIs (Wednesday, 18 January)
• [OK?] Re: BASE absolute IRIs (Tuesday, 17 January)

Faisal.Alkhateeb@inrialpes.fr

• [public-rdf-dawg-comments] <none> (Wednesday, 11 January)

Fred Zemke

• major technical: no privilege model (Thursday, 12 January)
• major technical: dateTime arithmetic (Thursday, 12 January)
• major technical: no aggregates (Thursday, 12 January)
• major technical: no subqueries (Thursday, 12 January)
• major technical: orthogonality (Thursday, 12 January)
• major technical: underspecified errors (Thursday, 12 January)
• major technical: blank nodes (Thursday, 12 January)
• major technical: runaway queries (Thursday, 12 January)
• major technical: semantics are poorly specified (Thursday, 12 January)
• editorial comments on SPARQL Query Lanuage for RDF (Thursday, 12 January)
• minor technical: omissions from Appendix B Conformance (Thursday, 12 January)
• minor technical: A.7 grammar, rule [25] Constraint (Thursday, 12 January)
• minor technical: are periods separators or terminators? (Thursday, 12 January)
• minor technical comments on A.4 Comments (Thursday, 12 January)
• minor technical: are variable names case insensitive? (Thursday, 12 January)
• minor technical on A.3 Keywords (Thursday, 12 January)
• minor technical on 11.2.2 Effective boolean value (Thursday, 12 January)
• minor technical on 11.2.1 Invocation (Thursday, 12 January)
• minor technical on 10.4.3 Description of resources (Thursday, 12 January)
• minor technical on 10.3 Constructing an output graph (Thursday, 12 January)
• minor technical on 10.2 Selecting variables (Thursday, 12 January)
• minor technical on 10.1 Solution sequences and result forms (Thursday, 12 January)
• minor technical on 9 Specifying RDF datasets (Thursday, 12 January)
• minor technical on 5.4 Optional matching - formal definition (Thursday, 12 January)
• minor technical comment on 2.1.3 Syntax of variables (Thursday, 12 January)
• Major technical comment: identifier length (Thursday, 12 January)

Hugo Haas

• Re: [Ok?] Re: Wrong SOAP namespace (Wednesday, 11 January)

Ian Davis

• [closed] Re: Incorrect braces in Sparql test cases [OK?] (Wednesday, 25 January)
• [CLOSED] Re: Common variables across multiple optional blocks [OK?] (Wednesday, 18 January)
• Common variables across multiple optional blocks (Tuesday, 17 January)
• Incorrect braces in Sparql test cases (Monday, 16 January)

Ivan Mikhailov

• Suspicious mismatch between SPARQL grammar rules and examples (Tuesday, 10 January)

Jacco van Ossenbruggen

• SPARQL DESCRIBE (Personal comments) (Monday, 9 January)

Jeen Broekstra

• [CLOSED] Re: Broad application of CSS hypertext pseudo-classes (as to SPARQL "link" elements) (Tuesday, 3 January)
• [CLOSED] Re: Small comment on rdf-sparql-xmlres and CSS styling (Tuesday, 3 January)

Kendall Clark

• Re: [OK?] Re: SPARQL Protocol: suboptimal examples (Tuesday, 31 January)
• Re: [OK?] Re: SPARQL: Error handling (Monday, 30 January)
• Re: [OK?] Re: SPARQL: Error handling (Monday, 30 January)
• Re: [OK?] Re: SPARQL: Error handling (Monday, 30 January)
• Re: [OK?] Re: SPARQL: Error handling (Monday, 30 January)
• Re: [OK?] Re: SPARQL: Error handling (Sunday, 29 January)
• Re: [OK?] Re: SPARQL: Error handling (Sunday, 29 January)
• Re: [OK?] Re: SPARQL Protocol: suboptimal examples (Sunday, 29 January)
• [OK?] Re: SPARQL Protocol: suboptimal examples (Sunday, 29 January)
• Re: HTTP Status Codes for QueryRequestRefused [OK?] (Monday, 23 January)
• Re: URI serialization issues (Thursday, 19 January)
• Re: URI serialization issues (Wednesday, 18 January)
• Re: [OK?] Re: Section 3 of SPARQL protocol partially out of scope. (Wednesday, 18 January)
• Re: URI serialization issues (Wednesday, 18 January)
• [OK?] Re: SPARQL Protocol: suboptimal examples (Tuesday, 17 January)
• [OK?] Re: Section 3 of SPARQL protocol partially out of scope. (Tuesday, 17 January)
• [OK?] Re: Double binding of a WSDL 2.0 operation (Tuesday, 17 January)
• [OK?] Re: SPARQL Protocol Spec Examples (Tuesday, 17 January)
• Re: HTTP Status Codes for QueryRequestRefused (Tuesday, 17 January)
• [OK?] Re: [comments] SPARQL Protocol against QA SpecGL ICS (Tuesday, 17 January)
• [OK?] Re: [comments] typo and general (Tuesday, 17 January)
• [OK?] Re: Comments on SPARQL protocol document (Tuesday, 17 January)
• Re: [OK?] Re: Comments on SPARQL protocol document (Tuesday, 17 January)
• [OK?] Re: Comments on SPARQL protocol document (Tuesday, 17 January)
• Re: URI serialization issues (Tuesday, 17 January)
• Re: URI serialization issues (Tuesday, 17 January)
• Re: URI serialization issues (Tuesday, 17 January)
• [OK?] Re: Minor editorial issues for WD-rdf-sparql-protocol-20050914 (Thursday, 12 January)
• Re: HTTP response code discussion (Wednesday, 11 January)
• Re: [Ok?] Re: Wrong SOAP namespace (Wednesday, 11 January)
• [OK?] Re: Protocol erratum (Saturday, 7 January)
• [OK?] Re: Query By Reference in SPARQL Protocol (Thursday, 5 January)
• Re: HTTP Status Codes for QueryRequestRefused (Thursday, 5 January)
• Re: [Fwd: SPARQL Protocol Review and Comments] (Wednesday, 4 January)
• [OK?] Re: [Fwd: SPARQL Protocol Review and Comments] (Wednesday, 4 January)
• Re: [Fwd: SPARQL Protocol Review and Comments] (Wednesday, 4 January)
• Re: [Fwd: SPARQL Protocol Review and Comments] (Wednesday, 4 January)

Lee Feigenbaum

• Re: SPARQL: incorrect/confusing example in 9.3 [CLOSED] (Sunday, 29 January)
• Re: SPARQL: Backslashes in string literals [CLOSED] (Sunday, 29 January)

Leigh Dodds

• Re: [OK?] Re: SPARQL Protocol Spec Examples (Wednesday, 18 January)
• Re: [OK?] Re: Query By Reference in SPARQL Protocol (Friday, 6 January)

marcos rebelo

• Questions on the Sparql (Thursday, 19 January)

Mark Baker

• Re: URI serialization issues (Thursday, 19 January)
• Re: URI serialization issues (Wednesday, 18 January)
• Re: URI serialization issues (Wednesday, 18 January)
• Re: URI serialization issues (Wednesday, 18 January)
• URI serialization issues (Tuesday, 17 January)
• Re: HTTP response code discussion (Thursday, 12 January)
• HTTP response code discussion (Wednesday, 11 January)

Peter F. Patel-Schneider

• [closed] Re: inconsistent use of terminology in SPARQL query language document [OK?] (Friday, 6 January)

Richard Newman

• Re: [CLOSED] Re: BASE absolute IRIs (Tuesday, 17 January)
• Re: major technical: no privilege model (Friday, 13 January)
• Re: minor technical comment on 2.1.3 Syntax of variables (Thursday, 12 January)
• Re: minor technical on 9 Specifying RDF datasets (Thursday, 12 January)
• Re: minor technical on 10.2 Selecting variables (Thursday, 12 January)
• Re: major technical: no privilege model (Thursday, 12 January)
• Re: major technical: blank nodes (Thursday, 12 January)
• Re: [OK] Re: Protocol erratum (Saturday, 7 January)
• Protocol erratum (Saturday, 7 January)

Seaborne, Andy

• Re: minor technical comments on A.4 Comments [OK?] (Monday, 23 January)
• Re: minor technical on 10.4.3 Description of resources [OK?] (Monday, 23 January)
• Re: minor technical on A.3 Keywords [OK?] (Monday, 23 January)
• Grammar updated to reflect BGP/Constraint interpretation (Monday, 23 January)
• Re: Common variables across multiple optional blocks [OK?] (Wednesday, 18 January)
• Re: minor technical on 10.2 Selecting variables [OK?] (Tuesday, 17 January)
• Re: minor technical on A.3 Keywords (Tuesday, 17 January)
• Re: minor technical on 10.4.3 Description of resources (Tuesday, 17 January)
• Re: minor technical comments on A.4 Comments (Tuesday, 17 January)
• Re: minor technical: are variable names case insensitive? [OK?] (Tuesday, 17 January)
• Re: [OK?] (Wednesday, 11 January)
• Re: Suspicious mismatch between SPARQL grammar rules and examples [OK?] (Tuesday, 10 January)
• Re: sparql describe - options?! [OK?] (Monday, 9 January)
• Re: sparql describe - options?! (Monday, 9 January)
• Re: inconsistent use of terminology in SPARQL query language document [OK?] (Friday, 6 January)
• Re: Suspicious notation in SPARQL lexical rule for STRING_LITERAL_LONG1 [OK?] (Thursday, 5 January)
• Re: Comments on last-call SPARQL draft 20050721, sections 3 onwards [OK?] (Wednesday, 4 January)

Thomas Roessler

• Re: [OK?] Re: Section 3 of SPARQL protocol partially out of scope. (Wednesday, 18 January)

Last message date: Tuesday, 31 January 2006 16:55:53 UTC