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

Bijan Parsia wrote:
> On Apr 12, 2005, at 4:50 PM, Dan Connolly wrote:
> 
> 
>> 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
> 
> [snip]
> 
> I'm v. overtired, but I've seen no mention of the many issues I've 
> raised with regard to the formal bits, including the fact that I 
> believe, at the moment, that any bnodes in the query graph will make 
> the query fail.
> 
> Are these all considered editorial? If so, I'd like some mention of 
> that fact, and an indication that they've been dispatched to the 
> editors.
> 
> I would also like to know the normative status of various bits of the 
> spec. Which trumps, definitions or main body text?
> 
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
> 
> 

There are quite a few messages from you, both large and small, and I'm grateful 
for the work you have done in creating your comments.

I'm getting through my email backlog from just over a week on vacation - the 
more major comments take longer to get to because they need serious 
consideration (and I do have some non-DAWG things to do :-)

In the telcon, the WG decided to publish a working draft (not last call) this 
week because the comments list comments are being made on an old draft.  Just as 
an intermediate step, the editors were advised by the WG to publish very soon, 
even though there will be outstanding comments from inside and outside the 
working group that have not been addressed.

	Andy

Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2005 08:10:56 UTC