On 2010-11-17, at 11:28, Axel Polleres wrote: > > On 17 Nov 2010, at 11:15, Steve Harris wrote: > >> Seems fine, but is it BIND() BIND() or BIND() ()? > > not sure as I couldn't find it in the grammar yet, Andy? > (I have no strong feelings on either) BIND() BIND() might leave more syntax options open in the future, but no strong preference. - Steve >> It's probably right, just checking the response is correct. >> >> - Steve >> >> On 2010-11-17, at 10:42, Axel Polleres wrote: >> >>> I put up a draft response for >>> >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Nov/0005.html >>> >>> at >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:JG-1 >>> >>> Let me know whether you're ok with that or whether you think whether we should wait until BIND is specified further in the draft. >>> >>> Axel >> >> -- >> Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited >> 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK >> +44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/ >> Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 >> Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD >> >> > -- Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK +44 20 8439 8203 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 Wednesday, 17 November 2010 11:35:49 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:44 GMT