W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2005

note dissent on requirements/objectives?

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 13:48:24 -0500
To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1112986104.15813.4.camel@localhost>

I'm researching the history of some of our decisions in
order to explain them to commentors, and I'm realizing that
there is outstanding dissent sprinkled in our meeting records
that isn't easy to find.

The SPARQL QL spec has little red notes about a number of
non-consensus design decisions. I started to request
that the requirements document do likewise, but figured
it was easier for me to just index it in the issues list.


http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues

Revision 1.70  2005/04/08 18:43:08  connolly
noted outstanding dissent on issues:
 - valueTesting, 3.3 Extensible Value Testing
 - SOURCE, objective 4.2 Data Integration and Aggregation
and requirements
 - subgraph results
 - result limits
 - optional match
and overall approach
 - BRQL straw-man


If anyone wants the objections noted in the requirements
document too, please say so.

Bryan, your objection of 2004-05-04 re
3.3 Extensible Value Testing seems to have been procedural,
rather than technical. If you have since been satisfied
that the process is OK, please let me/us know and I'll
stop carrying that objection forward.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 8 April 2005 18:48:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:23 GMT