- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 15:40:17 -0700
- To: james anderson <james@dydra.com>, public-sparql-exists@w3.org
On 07/06/2016 07:09 AM, james anderson wrote: > good afternoon; > >> On 2016-07-06, at 15:41, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org >> <mailto:andy@apache.org>> wrote: >> >> Peter, >> >> Would you pleased resend your summary "Thu, 30 Jun 2016 06:05:27 -0700"? >> >> That's a concrete list place we can use as a starting point for discussing >> the scope of the work. > > it would help to have a list with the content indicated by this mock-up > > https://github.com/w3c/sparql-exists/wiki/Examples > > to lay out the scope in concrete, neutral terms. > > best regards, from berlin, > --- > james anderson | james@dydra.com <mailto:james@dydra.com> | http://dydra.com > > I don't see why it would not be better to use a modification of the actual SPARQL tests format. My understanding is that this format can be used to automatically generate a readable document, as was done to generate https://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/summary.html If more information is needed for a particular test the generator could be modified to add that information, or the information could be put in a companion document. I don't see why yet another format is needed. peter
Received on Tuesday, 12 July 2016 22:40:51 UTC