W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: comment on update

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 11:14:59 +0100
Cc: "Paul Gearon" <gearon@ieee.org>, "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A4651566-48C7-4B74-BAE8-69C2B6715CE4@deri.org>
To: "Lee Feigenbaum" <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Fine, Paul, Alex let me know, I'll put your names down in the comments list as well on that one not to loose track.

Axel

On 5 Apr 2010, at 16:29, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:

> I'd probably just wait until Paul and Alex have had a chance to evaluate
> the model in the paper and see if we'll be incorporating anything from
> it or not, before replying.
> 
> lee
> 
> On 4/2/2010 1:18 PM, Axel Polleres wrote:
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > I reworded the proposed answer slightly to possibly reflect that we might consider his input when we get to the update semantics...
> > If you want to change that wording please feel free:
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:RH-1
> >
> > thanks!
> > Axel
> >
> > On 2 Apr 2010, at 17:42, Paul Gearon wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Axel,
> >>
> >> I get the impression that Ross is well aware of what we've been doing.
> >> I believe that he is offering his calculus as a contribution to the
> >> SPARQL Update effort since we have not had the opportunity to develop
> >> one for ourselves.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Paul Gearon
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Axel Polleres<axel.polleres@deri.org>  wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> just read http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Mar/0009.html and added it to the comments...
> >>> not sure what to think of it. The mail doesn't really indicate any suggestions.
> >>>
> >>> I would be inclined to answer something short along the following lines. Agreed?
> >>>
> >>> ==========================
> >>> Dear Ross,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the input. You can check the current working draft of the SPARQL/Update specification
> >>> that the group is working on, which is an evolution of the SPARQL/Update proposal you cite in your paper [4], at:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-update/
> >>>
> >>> Comments on this document are highly welcome!
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Axel, on behalf of the WG
> >>> ==========================
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> 
Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 10:15:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:42 GMT