comments on SPARQL QL, protocol, rf1, tests, requirements from outside the WG

In post-telcon discussion, I told Andy that I'd answered many of the
comments, and I'd tell him which ones I have not answered. So here's a
list, in roughly newest-first order, back to about 23 March. I presume
the 31 March
rq23 draft handled most of the comments up to 23 March.

These  probably merits some editor's attention, and perhaps a reply.
CONSTRUCT *, optionals and alternatives (QL)
SPARQL query by reference in HTTP GET (protocol)
Comments on pattern solution definition (QL)
Boolean effective value tests (QL, test)

This one is on the edge of the chartered scope. It's a comment
on requirements. I'm mulling over a reply.
SPARQL requirements (and INSERT)

This one I have brought to the WG's attention under
graphSolutionsMapping
More comments about CONSTRUCT

I think we have noted this one in our fromUnionQuery discussions
Named- and background graphs, triples vs quads, trust, etc.


I think the next WD is our best reply to these:

NumericalLogical syntax seems strange
 comment on obsolete grammar.

Reification shorthand (please drop it)

LIMIT clause in right place?
 this one might merit an individual reply, but recent designs
 for limit/offset/sort change the game quite a bit

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E