- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 10:52:18 -0500
- To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 08:18 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: > Given recent discussion and comments, I'm inclined to add > three issues to our issues list... > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues FYI, I seem to have gotten TimBL's attention on these issues in #swig. Feel free to join in now or read later... recent feedback on SPARQL http://swig.xmlhack.com/2005/09/08/2005-09-08.html#1126194443.554258 > 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 15:52:30 UTC