- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 09:20:33 +0100
- To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- Cc: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 2011-06-08, at 01:31, David Wood wrote: > On Jun 7, 2011, at 14:20, Guus Schreiber wrote: > >> See >> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.06.08 >> >> Two questions: >> >> 1. SPARQL LC: any progress we can report on the reviews on behalf of the WG? > > > Our most substantive comments will relate to the string representation issues. We seem to be approaching a consensus to remove the differences between string representations from the abstract (but not surface) syntax, but aren't there yet. > > If we can get there in time, we have the possibility of suggesting some minor changes to SPARQL. If not, we will have to live with their decisions when it comes time for us to produce the Turtle documents. I'd surely prefer to have SPARQL and Turtle agree, but would also like to address the string issues. > > I have heard that the SPARQL WG is not particularly interested in addressing substantive comments. Although I understand that from a process standpoint, we shouldn't let process dictate progress if we have something real to say. I personally think alignment between Turtle and SPARQL trumps the SPARQL WG's timing, but we may need to convince them of that. The places in the SPARQL documents that are likely to be touched by a change in this area are marked as "volatile" (sorry, I don't remember the exact wording), so there should be no problem as long as the change isn't too invasive to SPARQL. I agree that harmonising RDF abstract syntax, Turtle, and SPARQL should be a priority. - Steve -- Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK +44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2011 08:21:40 UTC