Links to actuall implementations (Re: Review of F&R doc)

On Tuesday 23 June 2009 15:08:34 Axel Polleres wrote:
> 3) Sections 2.1.3 and 2.4.3 miss a bullet  list of implementations, but
> should have, like 2.2.3 and 2.3.3, so I suggest the following simple
> solution:

Actually, I have not included them deliberately, since I feel too many of 
those links calls into doubt whether the document is self-sufficient, which 
we agree it should be.

I do agree however, that the document should be consistent, and for now, I 
have chosen to not include those, Alex has included them, so we should have a 
consensus on this topic.

If we decide to include them, should the list be exhaustive? What is the 
policy for adding them? Removing them? Can we ensure that we link to Cool 
URLs (I have feeling the F&R document will have a far longer lifespan than 
the individual features suggestions)?

Based on these concerns, I chose to only include self-sufficient examples of 
implemented behaviour, not links to each implementation. 

But as always, I'll change if there is concensus that they should go in.

Kind regards 

Kjetil Kjernsmo
-- 
Senior Knowledge Engineer / SPARQL F&R Editor
Mobile: +47 986 48 234
Email: kjetil.kjernsmo@computas.com   
Web: http://www.computas.com/

|  SHARE YOUR KNOWLEDGE  |

Computas AS  PO Box 482, N-1327 Lysaker | Phone:+47 6783 1000 | Fax:+47 6783 
1001

Received on Tuesday, 23 June 2009 13:28:15 UTC