- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 18:22:57 +0100
- To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
In http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rf1/ $Revision: 1.52 $ of $Date: 2005/07/26 17:11:25 $ you should find changes for the actions on the results doc. I took them from http://www.w3.org/2005/07/26-dawg-irc before the formal record appears, I'll check when it does. After "PROPOSED: that http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rf1/mime.txt (delegating choice of file extension to the editor) addresses issue resultsMimeType, contingent on review by Elias" I chose a file extension of ".srx" which has no previous common record in the file extension websites referred to in the telcon. This was actioned via a resolution in the telcon. This changes section 5, see next item. ACTION DaveB: add mime type to results format Done. Reviewers of the mime-type registration (EliasT, DanC) you might prefer to read section 5 of the draft http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rf1/#mime which I've made into a stand-out HTML style rather than <pre>, and added links. After "PROPOSED: to note that the .xsd is derived from the .rng (and therefore, as far as we know, they mean the same thing) and make them both normative" Done. See Section 4. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rf1/#schemas After "PROPOSED: to change the namespace name to http://www.w3.org/2005/sparql-results# (and update rf1 and rq23)" and ACTION DaveB: update rf1 with new namespace (which is http://www.w3.org/2005/sparql-results# ) Done. Also updated all the schemas and examples. See section 3. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rf1/#examples and section 4. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rf1/#schemas ACTION DaveB: to choose a term and define it (for the document itself) Done. It's at the start of section 2. and has anchor defn-srd for the term "SPARQL Results Document" http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rf1/#defn-srd Separately I've fixed the XQuery example after discussions with Howard on how bad my former version was! So hopefully it now should be (more) correct. Thanks Howard. See http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rf1/result2-to-html.xq Dave
Received on Tuesday, 26 July 2005 17:23:06 UTC