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

RE: Default and named datasets in federated queries

From: Polleres, Axel <axel.polleres@siemens.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 17:13:53 +0200
To: "Peter.Waher@clayster.com" <Peter.Waher@clayster.com>, "cbuilaranda@gmail.com" <cbuilaranda@gmail.com>, "public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9DA51FFE5E84464082D7A089342DEEE80149E378BBE6@ATVIES9917WMSX.ww300.siemens.net>
Dear Peter,

I have added an item linking to your mail
to consider implementation experience of specifying datasets
for federated query to our
http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Future_Work_Items list
(where the group collects suggestions for future work).

I'd appreciate if you could briefly confirm that this
answers your concern.

Best regards,
Axel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Waher [mailto:Peter.Waher@clayster.com]
> Sent: Mittwoch, 03. Oktober 2012 16:15
> To: Carlos Buil Aranda; public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Default and named datasets in federated queries
>
> Hello Carlos
>
> Thank you for your reply.
>
> Will the issue be kept and raised automatically when work on
> the next version commences? Or do I need to raise this issue
> again for the next version?
>
> Otherwise, my question has been answered.
>
> Sincerely,
> Peter Waher
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carlos Buil Aranda [mailto:cbuilaranda@gmail.com]
> Sent: den 3 oktober 2012 09:43
> To: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org; Peter Waher
> Subject: RE: Default and named datasets in federated queries
>
> Dear Peter,
> The Working Group has considered your comments about allowing
> FROM and FROM NAMED clauses after the SERVICE clause but
> we've opted for the current design for simplicity and due to
> a lack of implementation experience.
> Along these lines, the group will investigate more about how
> datasets will/can interact with the new federated query form
> as the community gets more implementation experience. Based
> on this, a future SPARQL-WG will be able to consider your
> comments in more depth. Unfortuantely, the Working Group has
> very tight deadlines and there is not much time left to
> design and implement substantive changes to the specification now.
> We would be grateful if you would acknowledge that your
> comment has been answered by sending a reply to this mailing list.
> Carlos, on behalf of the SPARQL WG
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2012 15:14:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 3 October 2012 15:14:24 GMT