On 23 Nov 2009, at 17:36, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: > Andy Seaborne wrote: >> >>> SteveH and Dave Beckett expressed a contrary opinion at the F2F >>> that it >>> might be better to rethink the whole graph management approach for >>> SPARQL Query, but I feel strongly that that would be very >>> confusing for >>> users and implementors alike. >> I'd like to hear more about that - is there a description of an >> alternative? > > I'll let Steve speak, but I meant rethink it for SPARQL *Update* - > no one was proposing changing SPARQL Query's model, since we need to > ensure backwards compatibility. Sorry for any confusion. Um. It certainly sounds like the sort of thing I might have said, but I have no recollection of it whatsoever. Sorry. Can I blame jetlag? - Steve -- Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited 2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK +44(0)20 8973 2465 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9ADReceived on Monday, 23 November 2009 18:21:31 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:40 GMT