- From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:04:40 -0400
- To: Chimezie Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>
- CC: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, sparQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Go ahead and make the change at your convenience, but we'll also record a resolution on Tuesday. Lee On 3/23/2011 11:59 AM, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote: > +1 > I think it is a good idea as well. I can make that change now unless > we want to have a formal resolution to do so (in the same way we had > one to make the initial change). > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Sandro Hawke<sandro@w3.org> wrote: >> On Wed, 2011-03-23 at 11:56 +0000, Axel Polleres wrote: >>> On 22 Mar 2011, at 16:21, Andy Seaborne wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 22/03/11 15:15, Steve Harris wrote: >>>>> I think it's a good idea, the current name is a bit misleading. >>>> >>>> +1 >>> >>> +1, likewise >> >> +1, which I sort of said before this thread started. >> >> - s >> >>> >>> Axel >>> >>>>> >>>>> - Steve >>>>> >>>>> On 2011-03-22, at 14:48, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Based on recent conversations, there has been suggestions that since the dataset protocol is defined against (mutable) graph stores, the name we chose in http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2011-01-25#resolution_3, that we change the name to reflect this. >>>>>> >>>>>> The current name is: >>>>>> >>>>>> SPARQL 1.1 RDF Dataset HTTP Protocol >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd imagine the alternative name would be: >>>>>> >>>>>> SPARQL 1.1 Graph Store HTTP Protocol >>>>>> >>>>>> Please use this thread to express support or concern about this proposed change. We'll make a final decision on the name next Tuesday, and I promise that we won't then revisit it again. :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> Lee >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > >
Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2011 16:05:18 UTC