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

On 2011-05-30, at 12:44, Andy Seaborne wrote:

> Sandro,
> 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 ...").

Yeah, I like that better.
> Suggestion:
> """
> The working group will consider alignment of syntax with the areas of overlay with Turtle [link-submission] where it causes minimal change.
> """

- Steve

Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD

Received on Monday, 30 May 2011 19:00:56 UTC