- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@clarkparsia.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 13:57:08 -0400
- To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com> wrote: > > It comes from > http://www.w3.org/Submission/2008/SUBM-SPARQL-Update-20080715/ > which the charter mentions. I don't think that matters, since the first bullet point I quoted seems to be scoping the update issue -- or that's a reasonable way to read it -- and the charter also mentions, for example, ESW Wiki, and I doubt anyone believes that that mention puts everything discussed on ESW Wiki into scope for this WG. > (and for clarity: I'm not proposing changing the decision of the WG on the overall feature set we decided at the F2F). I didn't take you to be proposing any changes. I thought you were trying to clarify the decision by distinguishing subparts. Which I agreed with and offered a suggestion as to how the spirit -- again, as I understood it -- of required & time-permitting features could be promoted. Cheers, Kendall
Received on Friday, 8 May 2009 17:58:02 UTC