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

Re: ISSUE-54: Do we need (descriptions of) property functions in SD? Is this in scope for us?

From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 23:15:04 -0500
Cc: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>, SPARQL Working Group WG <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <44539880-5072-4C5B-82A9-383B79779AAF@evilfunhouse.com>
To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
On Feb 16, 2010, at 12:28 PM, Steve Harris wrote:

> On 16 Feb 2010, at 17:23, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
>> I'd be surprised if anyone disagrees that this is useful.
>> However, I have no idea how we would specify it in the service description document. How would we define a property/class that describes something that is not itself defined anywhere? The only way I see to do it is to define what a property function is, and that's beyond our scope.
> Right, this is my feeling too.

Can I take this to mean that my suggested wording isn't acceptable? I'm not sure we need to define exactly what happens when a property function does its thing so long as we indicate that it's up to the implementation, but others may think differently.

Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 04:15:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:59 UTC