W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2004

Re: do we need INSERT?

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 11:20:38 -0500
To: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1093623637.2934.4479.camel@dirk>

On Fri, 2004-08-27 at 10:44, Kendall Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:34:41AM -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > On Fri, 2004-08-27 at 10:15, Kendall Clark wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Is this outside our brief?
> > 
> > yes:
> > http://www.w3.org/2003/12/swa/dawg-charter#update
> 
> I disagree. The plain meaning of 2.4 is that we aren't *required* to
> do update;

It's under "out of scope" which says more than that, to me.

>  that's not the same as update being illicit or illegal or a
> violation of the charter.
> 
> At the very least, I think we should have a conversation about these
> issues in order to "expend reasonable effort to ensure that such
> extension is easy".

I'm not inclined to give high priority just now... not
until we've settled some basics, like the definition of "Graph match".

> Heh, in fact, "the group may include such an ability", so, in fact,
> it's *not* outside the charter.

ugh. who wrote that thing, anyway? 1/2 ;-)

> 
> Kendall
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 27 August 2004 16:20:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:20 GMT