W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > January 2011

Re: Comments on SPARQL 1.1 Uniform HTTP Protocol Working Draft 14 October 2010

From: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 07:18:48 +0100
To: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Message-id: <201101260718.49157.kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
On Tuesday 25. January 2011 17:49:24 Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:
> Also.  As a result of internal discussion and comments regarding this
> term, the current editor's draft replaces 'RDF knowledge' with 'RDF
> graph content' and I will be using this latter terminology in
> subsequent parts of this email.

That's a better term, but I feel that we should first identify the audience of 
this spesification. Is it the thousands of developers who could implement this, 
or is it a foundational document that other authors could use to document how 
it should be done for the former group? Honestly, I think that the current 
document is both too opaque and not sufficiently specified to be useful to 
developers, but I also feel that the current discussion is interesting and 


Kjetil Kjernsmo
Ph.d Research Fellow, Semantic Web
Received on Wednesday, 26 January 2011 06:19:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:28 UTC