We still have an unsaid issue... http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#unsaid but recent design drafts don't say much about it... http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#unsaid and if we're going to do it, I think it'll have significant impact on the design; I'm disinclined to put the question on the SOURCE issue until I have a clear picture of where we're going with UNSAID. I thought maybe we had adopted a requirement to do UNSAID, but I can't confirm from our requirements document. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-dawg-uc/#req If anyone would champion this feature, let him/her speak now... or soon (in the next few weeks)... or... wait until after we get a 1st version of SPARQL to REC. It's also in order to propose that UNSAID should not be in SPARQL, or that it should be postponed until a later version. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29EReceived on Wednesday, 29 September 2004 22:50:33 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 1 October 2009 14:41:58 GMT