Re: has anyone implemented SPARQL 1.1 yet?

> So it sounds like (given this and Greg's report [1]), we might well be
> able to skip CR, except for ER, but we might not want to, because we
> want to improve our test suite and give the community a chance to
> participate in the before-REC process.

</chair> At the time being, I tend to agree with the latter, ie. I'd  rather keep 
at least a short CR phase, given that we manage to get our core specs out by Christmas.
<chair>

Any more opinions on that one?

Axel


On 28 Nov 2011, at 13:32, Sandro Hawke wrote:

> On Thu, 2011-11-24 at 20:14 +0000, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> > Getting SPARQL 1.1 finished without delay is very attractive.  There is
> > a certain amount of ceremony involved, including the community beyond
> > the WG.  I'm not sure where the best balance lies.
> >
> > While it's not strictly necessary, I think it is desirable if possible,
> > to have systems outside the WG to be on the implementation report, which
> > some things is quite political. There are systems ready - we need to
> > collect the CR data.
> 
> Agreed about the ceremony and political balance.
> 
> > Jena is feature complete for query, update, protocol, federated query,
> > results (all) and graph store protocol. Code is there for service
> > description requests but I'm not how one shows conformance. Outstanding
> > though is WG protocol tests which is on the WG's ToDo list; I can provide
> > a public facing server for client testing if that helps.
> >
> > Jena hasn't yet address the parts of entailment it can provide but I
> > plan to in time for the implementation report.
> 
> So it sounds like (given this and Greg's report [1]), we might well be
> able to skip CR, except for ER, but we might not want to, because we
> want to improve our test suite and give the community a chance to
> participate in the before-REC process.
> 
>    -- Sandro
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2011OctDec/0215
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 30 November 2011 22:59:13 UTC