- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 17:33:36 +0100
- To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- CC: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 27/07/2010 4:47 PM, Axel Polleres wrote: > > On 27 Jul 2010, at 14:53, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> On 27/07/2010 2:24 PM, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: >>> On 7/26/2010 1:02 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote: >>>>> ======================================================================= >>>>> ISSUE-1 >>>>> >>>>> How to specify BasicFederatedQuery in a way that acknowledges optional >>>>> nature of feature& security issues >>>>> >>>>> Anybody has a proposal on this? >>>>> My proposal would be to just keep it in a separate document and mark >>>>> it as "SHOULD" or "MAY be implemented" plus tie it to a feature in sd: >>>> >>>> I thought we had decided that, on balance, it would go in the query doc. >>>> It would be edited separately for now but merged in when stable. >>> >>> I thought that the optionality (?) of the whole thing was still up in >>> the air? Though there was a leaning towards making SERVICE optional and >>> BINDINGS required? >> >> That's my recollection so BINDINGS is definitely in the query doc. IIRC >> we decided that, on balance, if it's just SERVICE, then a whole doc for >> it would be appreciable overhead and not enough benefit - an initial >> para say "optional feature" is sufficient. > > > Ok, the usual way to do this would be just to make the respective > section "Informative", wouldn't it? I guess so - certainly not "normative" - but I think it's still worth a line or two to explain. In a W3C doc, there can be "Informative" sections that are about required features - that is, they explain something which is normatively defined elsewhere in the spec. Here the "informative" is about a not-required feature. Andy
Received on Tuesday, 27 July 2010 16:34:12 UTC