RE: draft response to Peter Wharer 2

Looks ok (shall we - independent of the reply - add this to the Future work items list?)

Axel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee Feigenbaum [mailto:figtree@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Lee Feigenbaum
> Sent: Dienstag, 02. Oktober 2012 19:43
> To: Carlos Buil Aranda
> Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: draft response to Peter Wharer 2
>
> I made some small edits. It's ok with me as is.
>
> Anyone else?
>
> Lee
>
> On 10/2/2012 1:37 PM, Carlos Buil Aranda wrote:
> > Hi Lee,
> >
> > I updated the response.
> >
> > cheers,
> >
> > Carlos
> >
> > On Tuesday 02 October 2012 13:29:03 Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
> >> Hi Carlos,
> >>
> >> I don't think that we have consensus that we would want a way to
> > specify
> >> the dataset for a SERVICE call, so I would weaken that
> part of your
> >> response a bit. Perhaps you could say something like that
> the group
> >> opted for the current design for simplicity, and hopes to
> learn more
> >> about how datasets interact with federated query from
> implementation
> >> experience in order to inform future standardization?
> >>
> >> Lee
> >>
> >> On 10/2/2012 11:59 AM, Carlos Buil Aranda wrote:
> >>> Dear all,
> >>>
> >>> here you can find a drafted response for Peter Warer:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:PW2
> >>>
> >>> cheers,
> >>>
> >>> Carlos
>
>
>