Re: Features & rationale shortname

Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
> Axel wrote:
>  > Proposed strawman:
>  >
> That's OK, but I've felt that we need to version our combined efforts, 
> and this is an example of why; there can sure be a WG after us that will 
> produce a similar document, so perhaps sparql-11-features?

Since we talk about both sparql/query 1.1 and sparql/update 1.0, I am 
unsure. It is clear that we might need versioning for the query and 
protocol docs, i.e.

but where there is no prior document, I guess we wouldn't need that.

Another question is rather whether we want to keep the prefix


Personally, I still prefer the former, if there is no conflict with 
that, but there may well be other opinions?!?

Especially team contact opinions would be appreciated!


Dr. Axel Polleres
Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland, 
email:  url:

Received on Tuesday, 16 June 2009 08:44:17 UTC