- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 08:18:23 -0500
- To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Given recent discussion and comments, I'm inclined to add three issues to our issues list... http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues rdfSemantics -- should queries of equivalent graphs give the same answers? Any practical advice about queries over infinite graph such as all the RDF axiomatic triples? owlIntegration -- some explicit explanation of how OWL integrates with SPARQL seems worthwhile. owlDisjunction -- the worker example evidently doesn't work well with SPARQL as of the 21 July 2005 LCWD. Are there mature designs that work better? At a minimum, we should be explicit that we don't handle this. Are those reasonably good issue names and descriptons? The descriptions are easier to change than the names, btw. Is that too many or too few issues to cover recent discussions? -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 8 September 2005 13:20:07 UTC