Re: Agenda for tomorrow's TC 2010-08-24

On 24 Aug 2010, at 01:27, Gregory Williams wrote:

> On Aug 23, 2010, at 7:59 PM, Axel Polleres wrote:
> 
> >> * SPARQL 1.1 Common Functions Library
> >>   Status? Are we doing it? Document?
> >>
> >> * should move to promote the JSON format as a REC
> >>   and canonicalise its name?
> >>
> >
> > Good points as well, I would prefer to move them to next time, though.
> 
> I don't know what would be involved in including both of these at this point, but I think both of these are important. 

Just for clarification, I meant to move the discussion to the next TC, I agree that both these are important and hopefully still feasible in this round.

Axel

> There are many implementations that share a common set of functions that would benefit from standardization (most of these are probably from XPath F&O and have been listed on the wiki[1]; Leigh Dodds' survey[2] is also relevant here). The JSON format is similarly implemented by several implementations and standardization would greatly benefit potential new users of SPARQL for whom JSON is a preferable format to XML.
> 
> Is the WG timeline the primary argument against including these in our current work?
> 
> thanks,
> .greg
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:FunctionLibrary#XQuery_1.0_and_XPath_2.0_Functions_and_Operators
> [2] http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0AkNZYESXv3IndGwyRkRXZ2hES0RjM0c3MHhLa05vTmc&gid=6
> 
> 

Received on Tuesday, 24 August 2010 07:15:02 UTC