W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > August 2012

RE: BIND semantics (2)

From: Polleres, Axel <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 21:55:35 +0200
To: "james@dydra.com" <james@dydra.com>, "public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9DA51FFE5E84464082D7A089342DEEE80141DCD096D3@ATVIES9917WMSX.ww300.siemens.net>
> hould i understand, from your reply
> above, that no such means exists until the group takes the
> issue up at some point in the future?

Yes. This feature or its design are not under discussion this time around,
since it didn't find a majority in the feature selection process of the current SPARQL WG, cf.
http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql-features/
So, it'll only be up for discussion when a new WG will be chartered (which I can't yet give
any details on at this time)

If this answers your question and you don't insist on a formal reply, I'd appreciate if you
could answer to your original comment to the list along these lines.

Greetings from Vienna,
Axel

--
Dr. Axel Polleres
Siemens AG Österreich
Corporate Technology Central Eastern Europe Research & Technologies
CT T CEE

Tel.: +43 (0) 51707-36983
Mobile: +43 (0) 664 88550859
Fax: +43 (0) 51707-56682 mailto:axel.polleres@siemens.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: james anderson [mailto:james@dydra.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 14 August 2012 5:02 PM
> To: SPARQL Comments
> Subject: Re: BIND semantics (2)
>
> good afternoon, dr polleres;
>
> On 2012-08-14, at 15:10 , Polleres, Axel wrote:
>
> > P.S.: BTW, also your other comment:
> >  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/
> > 2012Aug/0005.html
> > does not seem to ask for a formal reply to the group.
> > Is that correct?
> > If so, again, we'd appreciate a short note that you don't expect a
> > formal reply.
> >
> > BTW, here's a short informal answer: the "Composite Datasets"
> > feature is at
> > the moment not under consideration and the Wiki page at
> >
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:CompositeDatasets just has
> > one possible design draft.
> > A concrete design for such a feature will be subject to
> discussions in
> > a future SPARQL WG, but as I mentioned in the reply to David, this
> > feature was left out for this round of SPARQL.
>
> as a thread here made reference to the 'CompositeDatasets'
> feature wiki note, but neither the thread nor the note
> described any process whereby the group would present the
> issue for consideration, my comment was intended to elicit
> information on that process. in particular how one is to
> comment on the issue. should i understand, from your reply
> above, that no such means exists until the group takes the
> issue up at some point in the future?
>
> best regards, from berlin,
> ---
> james anderson | james@datagraph.org | james@dydra.com |
> http:// dydra.com
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 14 August 2012 19:56:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 14 August 2012 19:56:02 GMT