- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 17:56:40 -0500
- To: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Cc: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Sep 5, 2005, at 5:20 PM, Enrico Franconi wrote: > > I don't see why we need to maintain in the document the wording > "subgraph of"; we could write "entailed by" and say that the type of > entailment is decided by the service. > > Why not? There was a time when all designs had equal footing, but over the last couple years we raised various issues and closed them, culminating in a decision 28 June that we had a design that met our requirements and addressed all outstanding issues. http://www.w3.org/2005/06/28-dawg-minutes#item09 So at this point, if you want the WG to consider a different design, the burden is on you give new information that motivates reconsidering earlier decisions. >> The current text in rq23 is based on the second paradigm. Would it >> help to add text that explains that the subgraph is the subgraph of >> the entailed graph, not the ground data? > > No, as I said it does not work in important cases. Which cases are those? I scanned the thread and I don't see what you're referring to. If they're use cases that other WG members find important, there may be sufficient cause to re-consider some decisions. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 5 September 2005 22:56:41 UTC