- From: Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>
- Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 16:33:12 -0400
- To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com> wrote: Hi All, > I know we already discussed the versioning of the recs., and it was quite > contentious :) but I mentioned it in the office the other day and I got > complaints that the /Update and /Query rec's versions will be out of sync. > > It was felt that having to say something like "this app requires backends > supporting protocol 1.1, query 1.1, and update 1.0" was too confusing to > people unfamiliar with SPARQL's history. > > Anyway, just thought I'd mention it. It's worth mentioning. I completely agree. Even if we have to come up with a naming/versioning system that doesn't mesh completely with history (eg. skipping a version number), it would be far preferable to having multiple version numbers associated with a single SPARQL revision. The confusion that it's generating already shows that we need to rethink this. Paul Gearon
Received on Wednesday, 7 October 2009 20:33:48 UTC