please chip in on SPARQL comment handling

This morning, when working on the weekly agenda
  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/weekly-agenda
I was doing an audit of the status of our comments
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/lc-status-report.html

I just finished the audit. Then I took another pass over it
to be more explicit about who has the ball on each one. A copy
of the results is below. I hope it's clear that the editors and
chair have plenty in their queues.

This is a request for the rest of you to help out. If
you're not sure where to help, take one of the ones marked
"for WG consideration" or "possibly editorial, possibly
substantive" and mail the WG with a suggestion of what to do
with it: what text, if any, to change, and what to say to
the commentor to attempt to satisfy them.

Please start a new thread rather than replying to this message,
and please give a pointer to the relevant message from
the -comments archive, along with some subject/from/date info.


lc status: as of 1.32: 
      * 14 closed :)
      * 13 pending: 
              * 3 where the chair just needs to tidy the thread state:
                IRIs vs RDF URI References; the 13 Oct msg says "...
                looks good"; SPARQL variable names syntax similarly,
                Some typos in WD
              * 6 pending a reply from the commentor: QuotedIRIref too
                lax , ORDER with IRIs, incorrect/confusing example in
                9.3, BASE IRI resolution, Backslashes in string
                literals, Please make sure the grammar is directly
                machine consumable
              * 1 where the commentor gave further editorial information
                for consideration by the protocol editor: SPARQL
                Protocol against QA SpecGL ICS
              * 4 where the commentor supplies further information for
                consideration by the WG: 
                      * Charmod conformance; my OK? message has a
                        forward reference to protocol LC. Reviewer asks
                        for I18N WG review in reply
                      * External storage of queries reminds me that we
                        owe ietf-types a review of our MIME types. DaveB
                        tried but ran into list admin foo.
                      * Query forms should be resources, not operations
                        baker 5Sep, baker 6 Sep
      * 36 open: 
              * 3 for the chair to clean up thread-state: Roman Numeral
                test, Typo in RDF Dataset definition, SPARQL Protocol
                for RDF
              * 1 that's more of a how-to that Andy mostly redirected;
                chair (or helper) should either close the thread or
                explicitly ask if the commentor is happy to take their
                question elsewhere: need extar information in SPARQL
              * 3 connect to valueTesting which we just closed 25 Oct
                with actions on EricP, I think: language tag issues,
                Error handling, isURI poorly named
              * 8 clearly editorial: 
                      * protocol: typo and general, Style for PRE boxes,
                        Wrong SOAP namespace, WSDL comments on SPARQL
                        Protocol LC Draft
                      * query results: rdf-sparql-xmlres and CSS
                        styling, Query Results XML Format typo
                      * QL: acknowledge prior art, Editorial comments on
                        Last Call WD from ivan,
              * 2 connected to WSDL 2.0 changes we requested, pending
                one more reply from WSD WG: Protocol Review and
                Comments, Note about WSDL2 Binding
              * 4 clearly-substantive requests for WG consideration: 
                      * results format: SPARQL Results Format and
                        Unbound Variables, Broad application of CSS
                        hypertext pseudo-classes
                      * QL: from the XML Query and the XSL WGs, format
                        based on Unicode?
              * 5 connected to an open WG issue, rdfSemantics: Barstow,
                pfps x3, entailment, soundness, completeness
              * 10 possibly substantive, possibly editorial: 
                      * QL: W3C QA Guidelines conformance, Security
                        Considerations, General Document
                        Comments,Querying the Dataset, Semantics of
                        queries involving named graphs, section 2,
                        Example Errors, sections 3 onwards 
                              * 1 for the chair or a QL editor to check
                                that we've handled it all and send an
                                [OK?] message: twinql Retrospective
                      * protocol: on SPARQL protocol document
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2005 03:29:39 UTC