On Wed, 2011-03-23 at 11:56 +0000, Axel Polleres wrote: > On 22 Mar 2011, at 16:21, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > > > > > > On 22/03/11 15:15, Steve Harris wrote: > > > I think it's a good idea, the current name is a bit misleading. > > > > +1 > > +1, likewise +1, which I sort of said before this thread started. - s > > Axel > > > > > > > - Steve > > > > > > On 2011-03-22, at 14:48, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: > > > > > >> Based on recent conversations, there has been suggestions that since the dataset protocol is defined against (mutable) graph stores, the name we chose in http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2011-01-25#resolution_3, that we change the name to reflect this. > > >> > > >> The current name is: > > >> > > >> SPARQL 1.1 RDF Dataset HTTP Protocol > > >> > > >> I'd imagine the alternative name would be: > > >> > > >> SPARQL 1.1 Graph Store HTTP Protocol > > >> > > >> Please use this thread to express support or concern about this proposed change. We'll make a final decision on the name next Tuesday, and I promise that we won't then revisit it again. :-) > > >> > > >> Lee > > >> > > > > > > > > > >Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2011 12:51:22 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:45 GMT