- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:02:20 +0000
- To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 22/12/2009 10:05, Axel Polleres wrote: > I) Query: > ========= > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml > > looks ok for review. I welcome reviews but I'm still hoping to improve the text for the sections I'm authoring. > > Reviewers: Birte, Matt Souri, Axel > > - Olivier's comments? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009OctDec/0634.html > Negation in FILTERs (EXISTS, NOT EXISTS)? Does it add Expressivity? > > Some details: > 1) > "The structure of this document will change to full integrate the new features" > -> > "The structure of this document will change to fully integrate the new features" > > 2) > - I still suggest to include a rough changelog, marked as such, or was > the conclusion we need none, since this is the first integrated > document? I'd still suggest to describe the changes re:FPWD on a high > level in a few sentences. The status section notes the additional material. How much detail do you want? > VI) PropertyPaths: > ================== > > looks ok for review. this would be FPWD? > > Reviewers: Souri, Ivan, Lee, Axel > > - Ivan's comments > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009OctDec/0623.html > > - shall we reference the time allowed features that might go into > query in the end from Query? (to make readers aware) I don't understand that sentence. Andy PS http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/WG-Documents could be used to track reviewing.
Received on Tuesday, 22 December 2009 12:02:42 UTC