As for the planned action review tomorrow, I want to restrict to those potentially critical for going to LC... here's my subjective assessment of what is potentially affecting LC readiness and which I will take as a basis to go through (if you want to safe us TC time, let me know any of those completed before the call, thanks!): ACTION-200: Steve to Work with Andy to add CONSTRUCT WHERE { triple pattern } shortcut to query spec *critical for last call* I just sent a proposal for that one... ACTION-209: Steve to Disallow projected variables being reused in HAVING in the spec *critical for last call* ACTION-285: Paul to Collect update security issues and report back to mailinglist regarding ISSUE-19 *critical for LC * ACTION-286: Lee to Add a note on dropping of SOAP binding to next WD of protocol11 and explicitly solicit feedback on usage of SOAP in SPARQL *Is this critical for LC? Was it discussed in the protocol call?* ACTION-290: Lee to Make sure that the relationship between SPARQL protocol and HTTP protocol is clearly laid out before Last Call *critical for LC * ACTION-291: Work MIME type registration information into SPARQL Update document based on Sandro's suggestion for formatting etc. *critical for LC * ACTION-292: Lee to Make sure text on transactionality/concurrency gets added to protocol document *Is this critical for LC? Was it discussed in the protocol call?* ACTION-306: Lee to Work with Axel to identify potential editor(s) to shepherd through JSON document on Rec track * if we want JSON result format then this critical for LC* http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-json-res/ anybody willing to pick this up, otherwise I am afraid we need to let it go, NickH and several others were quite keen on it. http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-09-07#JSON_Results_Format but we didn't get any volunteers in response. ACTION-324: carlos to Ping carlos/eric in 2-3 weeks for progress on Fed query issues *critical for LC * I guess this is a question whether this is ready for review or should be converted into an action to summarise open questions to the group? ACTION-328: Steve to Implement the common understanding in ListEval() on unbound treated like errors *critical for last call* ACTION-331: Andy to Clarify the meaning of "potentially bound" vis a vis what can go on the right hand side of an AS in a SELECT list *critical for last call* ACTION-341: Lee to Look up how whttp:inputSerialization="application/sparql-update" would work and whether additional parameters could be included in the request URI query string *protocol related, assume that's crtitical too.*Received on Monday, 13 December 2010 22:48:08 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:05 UTC