- From: William Waites <ww@styx.org>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 19:03:28 +0200
- To: Jens Lehmann <lehmann@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
I agree with Jens' comments (especially the PDF with cut-and-pasted RDF/XML in and the feedback process) and would add that the vocabulary part and the SPARQL extensions should be separated out into two documents. The vocabulary is useful on its own but to use it that way you have to (mentally) filter out all the stuff about SPARQL when you read the spec. We (EDINA as well as OKF) are tentatively using it this way. Also There must (well, technicaly, SHOULD, but to my mind it is a must for something like this) be a document at the geosparql namespace URL that returns something like the namespace description as well. (And I wish we could find a better way than cramming the coordinate system at the front of the WKTLiteral but admittedly can't see a better way other than making an unwieldy forest of datatypes for this purpose). Cheers, -w -- William Waites <mailto:ww@styx.org> http://river.styx.org/ww/ <sip:ww@styx.org> F4B3 39BF E775 CF42 0BAB 3DF0 BE40 A6DF B06F FD45
Received on Thursday, 14 July 2011 17:04:02 UTC