Re: json result format --> new charter !?


Thanks for doing this - the diff is especially useful.

Do we need to add the Overview document to the list of documents?  if 
it's REC-track, then adding it for completeness would be safest.

On 30/05/11 08:32, Steve Harris wrote:
> Overall seems good to me, but I'd suggest a couple of changes:
> In light of the :s :p 18. change I'd propose to weaken the back compat requirement. Maybe something like "...excepting the case of errata", or so.

Maybe add that alignment between Turtle (submission?) and SPARQL is of 
importance.  I think this then gives us latitude to align escape 
processing and 18.  I don't think "18." can be kept under errata as the 
change is being made to Turtle and SPARQL so it can't be simply classed 
as errata ("we really meant ...").

This is already reflected on the LC with the working group note

The working group will consider alignment of syntax with the areas of 
overlay with Turtle [link-submission] where it causes minimal change.


Received on Monday, 30 May 2011 11:44:54 UTC