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

comment "Named- and background graphs, triples vs quads, trust, etc." on SOURCE, fromUnionQuery

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 16:33:31 -0600
To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1112222011.32006.460.camel@localhost>

Here's another comment that I'm not quite sure what
to do with...

 Named- and background graphs, triples vs quads, trust, etc.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Mar/0097.html

It is perhaps a request that we reconsider the SOURCE issue...
  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#SOURCE

I'm not in a good position to advocate the WG's decision on that issue;
that was the first of N issues that I tried, without success, to get
the WG to postpone. (hmm... I'm not on record as abstaining on the
decision we took... I wonder why not...)

The comment suggests "move the choice of arrangement into the
query language," which I don't think we considered. Perhaps that's
sufficient new information to re-open the issue.

The comment says it's a follow-up from discussion with Andy, so I doubt
he's in a position to defend the current design to the satisfaction
of the commentor; it seems he's already tried.

DaveB, you were involved in some proposals that led up to the WG's
decision... you're more than welcome to give it a try.

The comment is also perhaps input to our most long-standing open issue
fromUnionQuery.
  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#fromUnionQuery

I don't have any actions assigned about that one... I don't really
have any plan for addressing it. I'm all ears.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2005 22:33:33 GMT

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