- From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 18:45:01 +0100
- To: Kendall Clark <kendall@clarkparsia.com>
- Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
[Allow me to say this, I can't resist :-) ] This reminds me of the day when ISO decided against the SELECT clause in the SQL standard (because we are talking exactly about *this*). People laughing all over the big RDB vendor's offices all over the world. Oops, no: actually the opposite happened :-) --e. On 5 Dec 2010, at 18:11, Kendall Clark wrote: > We agree with a subset of reasons already expressed by others; that > is, we have no new reasons to oppose it. The chief of which is that we > still haven't met a customer who wanted SPARQL to behave in the way > you describe. All the talk about QL and EL being worthless otherwise > is completely disjoint from our experience with actual customers. In > fact, those claims elicited a round of chuckles in *both* of our > offices. FYI. :> > > Cheers, > Kendall > > PS--I'm being purposefully succinct because I'm not going to be drawn > into a long debate on this point. Our position won't change unless or > until *customers* express otherwise in sufficient numbers, i.e., no > time soon. > > > On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it> wrote: >> OK, so you oppose the extension. >> The original question was directed to OWL implementors, and so I understand you speak with this hat on. Could you please specify how can the extension be bad for you? I'd be interested to hear why leaving many more opportunities to other implementors to meet the standard and the long-standing theory can hurt you. >> cheers >> --e. >> >> The reason to oppose the extension being, from your side? >> --e. >> >> On 5 Dec 2010, at 16:03, Kendall Clark wrote: >> >>> Let be me more clear, then: we support the spec as-is, without the >>> additional part that Enrico is proposing. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Kendall >>> -- >>> Need to schedule a meeting w/ me? http://tungle.me/kendallclark >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it> wrote: >>>> I guess there is a major misunderstanding here. >>>> I am not by any means against the current spec. >>>> I am just proposing to have a very simple *additional* part. >>>> Gathering opinions in favour of the current spec does not say anything against my proposal. >>>> --e. >>>> >>>> On 5 Dec 2010, at 15:15, Kendall Clark wrote: >>>> >>>>> We're happy w/r/t the spec (in pertinent part) as it is. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Kendall >>>>> >>>>> On Dec 5, 2010, at 8:56 AM, Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> [snip] >>>>>> >>>>>>> Since we're hearing a pretty strong mixed opinion from the OWL implementers >>>>>>> on this list, are there other implementers that we can talk to to ask which >>>>>>> of these two approaches they'd prefer? >>>>>> >>>>>> I talked to a couple of people at ISWC and also before at the DL >>>>>> workshop or when I visited other universities. Enrico is the only >>>>>> person I have talked to who is stongly against the current spec. >>>>>> Several people are for the way the current spec is defined and some >>>>>> seem to have no strong preference or a slight preference for one or >>>>>> the other. I assume we could organise a teleconf on this topic and >>>>>> invite OWL folks via the OWL mailing list to participate, but also the >>>>>> public working drafts are announced on the list and so far nobody saw >>>>>> the need to comment on this. Anyway, I am happy to do whatever can >>>>>> help to move forward with the spec. >>>>>> >>>>>> Birte >>>>>> >>>>>>> thanks, >>>>>>> Lee >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 309 >>>>>> Computing Laboratory >>>>>> Parks Road >>>>>> Oxford >>>>>> OX1 3QD >>>>>> United Kingdom >>>>>> +44 (0)1865 283520 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >
Received on Sunday, 5 December 2010 17:45:36 UTC