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

Re: Comments list comments

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 08:27:41 -0600
To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1111501661.8271.651.camel@localhost>

On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 08:59 -0500, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
[...]
> I'd like the change the question  from "are people going to complain if
> we don't have this feature?" to "is SPARQL useful to many folks without
> this  feature?".

Your wish is my command... i.e. I have done that in many cases.
I have been answering comments that involve the edge of our scope
that way; e.g.

[[
> *** Language features ***
> where's the INSERT?
[...]

insert/update isn't among our requirements or even objectives
so far. i.e. the WG seems to think we can advance the state of the
art without doing INSERT just yet. If you think W3C shouldn't do
a QL at all without insert, please elaborate.
]]
 -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Mar/0044.html


>  I  think the  80/20  rule and  "it's version  1" is  a
> perfectly valid response to last call requests for features.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 22 March 2005 14:27:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:22 GMT