- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:09:25 -0400
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 09:04:06AM -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: > My question is the same in either case: did we consider this already? Just so I'm clear: what's the "this" that yr asking whether we considered it? I considered whether DESCRIBE was underspecified (intentionally) and whether we needed a way for client or server to ask or to say what it actually *did* in processing DESCRIBE. I decided that, in lieu of a fully worked out design, leaving it underspecified so that people could get experience with different DESCRIBE behaviors was a good (or, at least, acceptable) thing and one that might lead naturally to something better in the next version. > Does anybody think that it's new information that they would > like to use to change or reconsider the WG's decision? I don't see any new information there. Cheers, Kendall -- Sad songs and waltzes aren't selling this year... --Cake
Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2005 14:15:00 UTC