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

Re: SPARQL Update 1.1 review part1

From: Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 11:29:52 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=MFEBfajwskdUerqsxx5Q5pk45_YLC9NdUR-im@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Cc: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Alexandre Passant <Alexandre.Passant@deri.org>
Hi Lee,

I'm catching up after being sick, so I'm just getting to this now.

On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net> wrote:
<snip/>

> Hi Paul,
>
> I do think that the Working Group considered this issue pretty thoroughly
> when the decision was made. See, for example:
>
> * http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010JanMar/0428.html
> (email summarizing the possibilities; also see subsequent thread)

Yes, I see the summary. You mentioned 3. Right now I have the document
set (erroneously) to option 2. You only considered 1 and 3 to be
viable, and didn't like option 3. I also note that you needed to
discuss a lot of issues around option 3 because it raised so many
questions.

> * http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-03-09#Blank_Nodes_in_Delete
> (telecon discussion that led to the resolution)

You've already mentioned this. Unfortunately, I wasn't there to vote
against it. I obviously didn't realize the significance when reviewing
the minutes.

> I'm not inclined to revisit this decision at this point in time. Please let
> me know if you see something significantly new and would like the working
> group to consider it.

Well it does appear that the issues were considered. I suppose I'm not
going to create a roadblock for the working group at this late stage,
but I think it's a bad idea. This email can serve as a record that I
strongly object to this resolution.

Regards,
Paul Gearon
Received on Thursday, 17 February 2011 16:30:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:45 GMT