- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 17:50:59 +0000
- To: David McNeil <dmcneil@revelytix.com>
- Cc: RDB2RDF Working Group WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
Hi David, Apologies for being a bit pushy here. This is one of only four issues left that require WG resolutions. On 6 Dec 2011, at 16:28, David McNeil wrote: > Richard - There are several questions identified in Issue-75. It seems to me that we should hash out consensus on those questions before including this syntactic sugar to the spec. It *is* already in the spec and has been for many months. There were no objections raised when this feature when it was first proposed. The R2RML ED went to Last Call, including this feature, with the consensus of the WG. It seems to me that you are not satisfied with this status quo, and thus I assume you seek some sort of change to the status quo. What is that change? Or at least, can you explain what concerns you have regarding the design of this feature and its definition in the R2RML ED? Best, Richard
Received on Tuesday, 6 December 2011 17:51:42 UTC