- From: Chimezie Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 00:34:36 -0500
- To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Axel. On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > I updated the comments page: > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Comments > > Particularly, we have new unassigned comments on: > SPARQL 1.1 Uniform HTTP Protocol: GR-1, GR-2, KK-6, GR-3 I had some difficulty addressing GR-1 and GR-2 (as my draft response indicates). In particular, I was unable to completely distill out Greggs substantive issues (beyond his concern about 'RDF knowledge', which is addressed by the terminology change I agreed to). I was also unable to (in every case) identify those issues that had to do with the specification he was commenting on rather than with fundamental principles of the semantic web activity standards as a whole (such as the use of model theory to determine the meaning of RDF graphs, the notion that IRIs identify 'resources', open world assumption, etc.). My draft responses for both of these is below: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:GR-1 http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:GR-2 Both KK-6 and GR-3 seem to have more to do with SPARQL 1.1 Update. I agree with Greggs response in GR-3 which (by my reading) indicates that he believes no change is needed in what the response to a DELETE to a non-existent graph is. I'm not sure what the procedure is in this case. Do, I respond to GR-3 indicating that the reasoning there reflects why (the editor thinks) no change is necessary and ask if Kjetil is satisfied with it? -- Chime
Received on Tuesday, 25 January 2011 06:02:52 UTC