- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 11:17:13 +0100
- To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
The query doc now has a red box for issues related to Turtle/SPARQL compatibility: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#grammar and I've made a proposal to RDF-WG: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0000.html To people on both WGs: please be active on that RDF-WG thread: To everyone: please report how much pain these incompatibilities would cause in deployed systems. Andy On 02/05/11 01:07, Axel Polleres wrote: > Dear all, > > I want to at least attempt to vote for publishing as LC for > * Query: > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml > * Update: > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/update-1.1/Overview.xml > * Entailment regimes > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/entailment/xmlspec.xml > > and whichever other documents are ready for this Tuesday > even if we decide to accept going to LC "modulo minor fixes" > that we agree editors to resolve directly with reviewers. > > Thus, > 1) Editors, please let us know if you're ready from your side (for any documents) > 2) complete pubrules-check-ACTIONS > 3) anybody having severe concerns about any issues on any of the documents, please speak up now > > The reason, why we'd ideally go ahead this week to "release" at least the first batch > of documents for LC is that otherwise we have to wait until late May [1] > > best, > Axel > > 1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2011JanMar/0001.html
Received on Monday, 2 May 2011 10:17:44 UTC