- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 15:20:30 -0600
- To: "souripriya.das@oracle.com" <souripriya.das@oracle.com>
- Cc: eric@w3.org, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Sun, 2006-03-26 at 14:45 -0500, souripriya.das@oracle.com wrote: > Dan, > > Thanks for clarifying the process, specifically that old issues cannot > be re-argued once we enter CR. > I am trying hard to get it to a stage where I can vote YES for the > transition. But, I do need to first get an okay from folks in my > organization. OK, very well. > > In the mean time, I have prepared the attached write-up for use in > communicating with Fred Zemke regarding his comments that have so far > not been responded to specifically, 4 major technical comments and 6 > minor technical comments. Excellent. About "major technical: underspecified errors," we withdrew my action in the 21 Mar meeting. > Also, I did not see any response to his editorial comments. I take it you mean editorial comments on SPARQL Query Lanuage for RDF Fred Zemke (Thursday, 12 January) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2006Jan/0061.html While we didn't write a complete OK? message, I see that those comments did get at least some consideration; for example, I see in the editor's changelog: [[ Revision 1.634 2006/02/03 18:51:47 aseaborne Editorial changes in response to 2006Jan/0061 (part 3) ~ ensured its says "group graph pattern" everywhere, not "group pattern" ~ 4.1. - mention braces earlier ~ 5. Removed "semi-structured" text ~ 7 "comprising of" / "consisting of" ~ s/named variables/variables/g ... Revision 1.631 2006/02/01 15:17:15 aseaborne Editorial changes in response to 2006Jan/0061 (part 1) ~ Changed titles of 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 to not use the word "term" ~ Chnaged 2.1.X from "Syntax of" to "Syntax for" ~ Explictly say prefixes do not need to correspond with the serialization of the data ~ Link to VARNAME in "2.1.3 Syntax of Variables" ~ Edited intro sentence in 2.6 ]] -- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#chlog > Regarding blank nodes, although already answered, I thought Pat > Hayes' draft response for that was written very well and can be > communicated to him. Btw, is it okay for non-DAWG members to see > e-mails exchanged inside DAWG? Absolutely, yes. > I know those are public, exactly. You're more than welcome to refer to any of the proceedings of this WG in your discussion with Fred. > but ... > -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Sunday, 26 March 2006 21:20:40 UTC