Re: Comment: SPARQL Query conformance section

On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 09:31:40AM -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 09:38 -0400, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> > We have a coment asking for a conformancy section in SPARQL Query:
> >
> > 
> > DanC, you hvae argued that we should leave conformance to the protocol
> > spec (or an argument near that).
> I've argued that the QL spec should specify conformance of documents
> and answers to the QL syntax and semantics,
> and that the protocol spec should specify conformance to the protocol.

Roger that. I'm trying to sort out our task here. You specifically
requested that we not include RFC2119 (MAY MUST MIGHT) or include the
word "implementation". I was persuaded by this that we could define a
language and that conformance could come from the protocol document.

If the plan is different, please advise. If we are expected to provide
a conformance section without MAY and MUST or talking about
implementations, I would like some help. I thought that this was the
conformance plan
A SPARQL query string is a sequence of characters in the language
defined by the following grammar, starting with the Query production.
Maybe s/query string/query/ and add?:
The semantics of every SPARQL query are defined in this document. 

> >  I think the WG has tacitly or
> > activley agreed. Could you send mail to the commentor arguing your
> > position?
> No; I think the comment is editorial; it's asking for a different
> form of emphasis on the conformance stuff. I leave that to
> the editors.


office: +81.466.49.1170 W3C, Keio Research Institute at SFC,
                        Shonan Fujisawa Campus, Keio University,
                        5322 Endo, Fujisawa, Kanagawa 252-8520
        +1.617.258.5741 NE43-344, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02144 USA
cell:   +81.90.6533.3882

Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

Received on Monday, 24 October 2005 16:28:20 UTC