- From: james anderson <james@dydra.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 22:38:46 +0000
- To: public-sparql-exists@w3.org
> On 2017-03-09, at 10:07, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@topquadrant.com> wrote: [in response to my objection to proposal b, based on its limitations,] > > james, > […] > > May be the wording of the proposal isn't clear but I reject the premise that if there is a single issue that the whole proposal must be rejected. my concern is, from what i can gather from the ongoing correspondence, these proposals appear to be rooted in a misconception as to how to address these issues, which misconception leads them to attempt to address at a representational level issues which must be addressed at a semantic level, with the representation left to the implementation. i have lost track of the documentation for the proposals. the location which i thought would be “definitive”, that is the github document (https://w3c.github.io/sparql-exists/docs/sparql-exists.html) does not read as if there are proposals “a” and “b”, so there must be some other proposal document. where is it to be found? best regards, from berlin,
Received on Monday, 13 March 2017 22:39:21 UTC