W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2011

AW: CommentResponse:SC-3

From: Polleres, Axel <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:34:42 +0100
Message-ID: <316ADBDBFE4F4D4AA4FEEF7496ECAEF903E8C4E7@EVS1.ac.nuigalway.ie>
To: "Steve Harris" <steve.harris@garlik.com>, "Andy Seaborne" <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Cc: "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Response looks good to me as well. Ask myself, whether we should add a sentence, that we cannot change the proposal without a concrete different design? Maybe, after this sentence:
 
"The working group feels that the expansion approach reduces implementation burden, exploiting implementation techniques used in SPARQL 1.0, and provides convenient shorter forms for BGPs that could be written out in full. "
 
add something like 
 
"At this stage, we do not see a reasonably elaborated counter-proposal that would make the group revisit or change this design-choice."
 
I am not sure whether this prevents further cycles, but maybe it re-empasizes that we do not see a good reason or concrete proposal to change the current direction.
 
Anyways, I leave it up to you whether to add something along those lines or not and am also fine with sending the response "as is".
 
Axel
 
-- 
Dr. Axel Polleres
axel.polleres@deri.org    http://www.polleres.net/

________________________________

Von: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org im Auftrag von Steve Harris
Gesendet: Di 6/14/2011 12:22
An: Andy Seaborne
Cc: SPARQL Working Group
Betreff: Re: CommentResponse:SC-3



I think that's a reasonable response.

- Steve

On 2011-06-14, at 10:38, Andy Seaborne wrote:

> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:SC-3
>
> This conversion is going round in circles. Sebastián is just reiterating a previous point without new information.  There is no proposal here, nor in the previous messages. It is simply a matter that he would have preferred a different design where property paths are not translated to expansions as BGPs.
>
> All we can really do is say "we have read your comments but feel that
> the current approach is the right one".
>
> If this goes round yet again without making progress, I suggest we
> record it as dissent.  We aren't going to make any more progress on the
> comments list.
>
>       Andy
>
> (ignore the one in the unsolicited mail trap - wrong sending address)
>

--
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
Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2011 12:35:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:46 GMT