Re: Member Submission

On 15 Aug 2010, at 23:45, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> wrote:

> Let's look at this in the overall context of SPARQL 1.0->1.1.  While at the moment, google puts the member submission as the first hit, the SPARQL 1.1 Update is already the second hit so it seems reasonable to me that as SPARQL 1.1 finishes, or during the late stages of standardization, the order will naturally change as people pick up on SPARQL 1.1.
> 
> We have talked about an overview page giving details of the documents and also including some standard intro text in each of the documents to point to the other documents as is common elsewhere in W3C RECs.
> 
> Whether this is an overview document or something simpler like just a bulleted list of links to the docs, I don't mind.  The W3C boiler plate is reasonably long (and I'm writing this on a netbook so it's being brought home about the presentation issues of our document format).
> 
> The WG home page has some content that, in one sentence, gives a summary of the document (query is expressed as a diff from 1.0) so there is a starting point there.
> 
> It does not mention the function library doc which I hope we're still doing as I think it's helpful in creating working across implementations.
> 
> We should add the two result format documents into the list:
> 
> Aside: should move to promote the JSON format as a REC and canonicalise its name?  I'd help with that.
> 
> SPARQL 1.1 Query
> SPARQL Query Results XML Format
> Serializing SPARQL Query Results in JSON
> SPARQL 1.1 Update
> SPARQL 1.1 Uniform HTTP Protocol for Managing RDF Graphs
> SPARQL 1.1 Protocol
> SPARQL 1.1 Service Description
> SPARQL 1.1 Entailment Regimes
> SPARQL 1.1 Common Functions Library
> 
> Property paths is being folded into the query document, and IIRC so is federated query (the SERVICE part) with a suitable note about it not always being provided.
> 
> Steve wrote:
>> I would imagine more people now implement the drafts.
> 
> Who does implement SPARQL 1.1 Update?
> 
> I've done some parser work, but not execution, preferring to work on SPARQL 1.1 Query as proving ground for the editorial work (which is completed in ARQ now, pending clarification we make through review and testing).
> 
> Currently SPARQL/Update (the member submission) is in use and people use it.  I'm hopeful mapping that to the SPARQL 1.1 Update implementation can be done as a translation during or after parsing but I can't reuse the execution of updates unchanged as SPARQL 1.1 Update is a bit different different in the details.
> 
> For timing, we should do all the SPARQL 1.0 documents together as it may be confusing if some are done and not others.  The edits to OWL1 were done as OWL2 went to REC (the OWl1 changes are noted as 12 November 2009, REC was 27 October 2009).  The OWL 1.1 member submission has not been changed (and does not come up on the first page of a Google search for me at least).  Changing a member submission is a bit different from changing the product of the previous working group.
> 

I think we should link from the member submission to the WD / REC.
If not, we may end up with people implementing SPARQL Update from the MS and others from the REC, which will IMO be confusing

Alex.

> I don't think we should link to working drafts.
> 
> 	Andy
> 
> On 14/08/10 18:34, Alexandre Passant wrote:
>> SPARQL SPARQL
>> On 14 Aug 2010, at 16:03, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> "Steve Harris"<steve.harris@garlik.com>  wrote:
>>> 
>>>> We've have a few problems with people googling for "sparql update", finding the member submission from 2008, and assuming that's the right syntax.
>>>> 
>>>> Is there any way to put a note, or pointer to look at the current drafts? I would imagine more people now implement the drafts.
>>> 
>>> There are two approaches to this: making the "latest version" url serve up our current WG drafts, or have a note like on the OWL 1 RECs pointing to OWL 2.  I lean toward the latter option.
>> 
>> +1 for keeping the Member Submission at its own URL but linking to SPARQL 1.1 Update
>> 
>>> Anyone care to suggest wording for such a note, and I'll propose it to the people in charge of pubs...?    It'd be nice to have wording that won't need to be changed as our drafts mature.
>>> 
>> 
>> The best might be a simple wording similar to OWL / OWL2
>> 
>> """
>> New Version Available: SPARQL 1.1 Update (Working Draft 1 June 2010)
>> 
>> The SPARQL Working Group has produced a W3C Working Draft for a new version of SPARQL Update which adds features to this 2008 version. Please use the SPARQL 1.1 Update document instead of this Member Submission if you wish to implement SPARQL Update capabilities on your RDF store.
>> 
>> However, note that the syntax of SPARQL 1.1 Update features may change until SPARQL 1.1 Update becomes a W3C Recommendation.
>> """
>> 
>> WIll just require date change for and s/Working Draft/Recommendation for further updates - and removing the last bit when we reach Rec.
>> 
>> Alex.
>> 
>>>    -- Sandro
>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>>  Steve
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
>>>> 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
>>>> +44 20 8439 8203  http://www.garlik.com/
>>>> Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
>>>> Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Dr. Alexandre Passant
>> Digital Enterprise Research Institute
>> National University of Ireland, Galway
>> :me owl:sameAs<http://apassant.net/alex>  .
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>

Received on Sunday, 15 August 2010 22:17:08 UTC