- From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
- Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 14:34:12 +0200
- To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- CC: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Lee, Thanks for the heads-up. We will add this to the telecon agenda. Next to comments from individual members we should also consider doing a WG review. Indeed, getting consensus on the graph terminology is essential. Best, Guus On 16/05/2011 02:27, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: > Hi, > > The SPARQL WG has recently published 5 Last Call Working Drafts[1]. We'd welcome > feedback on these drafts from anyone in this group (or any other community > member, of course). > > I wanted to call this group's attention particularly to the SPARQL 1.1 Graph > Store HTTP Protocol [2], which defines the meaning of various HTTP verbs against > a graph URI. In specifying this behavior, the document defines some terms [3] > that are likely also relevant to this group's work. > > I'd like to ask that any interested members of this group take a look and share > their thoughts in this thread. If there is consensus around the terms used in > the Graph Store HTTP Protocol document, that's great; otherwise, I'd like to > setup a telecon between interested members of this group and of the SPARQL WG to > attempt to reach such consensus, in order that the Recommendations produced by > the two groups converge on shared terminology for the concepts having to do with > graphs. > > thanks, > Lee > > [1] http://www.w3.org/News/2011#entry-9095 > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-sparql11-http-rdf-update-20110512/ > [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-sparql11-http-rdf-update-20110512/#terminology > -- Prof. Guus Schreiber Web & Media, Computer Science VU University Amsterdam http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus
Received on Monday, 16 May 2011 12:34:36 UTC