- From: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 17:20:11 -0800
- To: Dean Allemang <dallemang@workingontologist.com>
- Cc: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Received on Tuesday, 25 November 2014 01:20:42 UTC
deanallemang@gmail.com wrote on 11/24/2014 12:29:38 AM: > ... I > guess I am disagreeing with the suggestion from Arnaud to specify > this without reference to a technology; I think that referring to > SPARQL in particular buys us a lot. To clarify, I'm not suggesting we specify our solution without reference to a technology. What I'm saying is that I don't know that we can say that the reference technology should be SPARQL without knowing what our solution might look like. Depending on the approach we choose something else than SPARQL might be more appropriate. Saying now that whatever we do has to be defined in SPARQL reduces our choices. In line with what Peter said, this seems premature. -- Arnaud Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Standards - IBM Software Group
Received on Tuesday, 25 November 2014 01:20:42 UTC