Re: Old comments without responses

Of the ones for me, only RC2 is relevant at this point in time.

Lee

On 8/14/2012 9:48 AM, Polleres, Axel wrote:
> Looking through older comments without replies - short summary, might be useful for the Telco:
>   
>   JL-4 (Sandro?): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012May/0009.html
> Indirect Graph Identification (Graph Store Protocol)... Think I remember the last time we discussed it we assigned it to Sandro.
>   
> (Chime?) JC-4 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2011Feb/0015.htm
>   + JC5
> plus Eric following up:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2011Feb/0016.html
> Also on GSP... These look outdated in the sense that the paragraph in question seems to be gone, but is the issue URI/vs IRI solved?
>
> (chime) KK-13  ... has  a draft repsonse
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:KK-13
> and one approval from Andy.Looked quickly over it, and (despite I am not really into this matter) looks ok to me as well... ready to send?
>
>
> (SteveH?) Looking at DBeckett-1
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Dec/0001.html
> it seems to be largely outdated.
> I ask myself whether - instead of the long draft reply at
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:DBeckett-1
> we shouldn't just answer that - to our knowledge all the items have been addresses in the LC document and we have
> coverage in the test suite now?
>   
> (Lee) The following comments on protocol also appear to be open:
> Demairy-1 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2011May/0010.html
> RC-2 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Sep/0002.html
>
> (Lee) SA-1 "performance "bug in xsl script" http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2011Jul/0007
> ... Seems not really critical path, but maybe should be answered. We might want to put this fix in an erratum for http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-XMLres/, but it seems not strictly necessary to me to change the XSL script.
>
> Best,
> Axel
>

Received on Tuesday, 14 August 2012 14:04:22 UTC