reporting of possible ambiguities in the SPARQL documents

In response to
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2006Apr/0016.html
(excerpted below), I would be very disappointed if concerns related to any
ambiguity in the SPARQL documents were *not* brought up in
public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org.

In my view admonishments to the contrary should either firmly repudiated or
the working group should officially monitor and report on the fora to which
such comments have been redirected.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider



[http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2006Apr/0016.html]

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:04:00 +0100
Message-ID: <DF5E364A470421429AE6DC96979A4F6F99A75A@sdcexc04.emea.cpqcorp.net>
To: Jorge Pérez <jperez@utalca.cl>
Cc: <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>


-------- Original Message --------
> From: Jorge Pérez <mailto:jperez@utalca.cl>
> Date: 18 April 2006 17:18

...

> Thanks again for your time, I will start with another thread to discuss
> about some *problems* (from my point of view) in the implementation of
> SPARQLer (ARQ) that reflects other ambiguities in the definitions of
> the last draft.  
> 
> 
> 
> - Jorge

This is the DAWG working group comments list. Please send ARQ bug reports to jena-dev@groups.yahoo.com 

http://jena.sourceforge.net/ARQ/support_request.html

	Andy