- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 11:22:30 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <5473D9D6.20309@topquadrant.com>
Hi Arnaud, out of curiosity, do you have some rough idea about when we will have sufficient user stories so that we can take the next steps? Thanks Holger On 11/25/2014 11:20, Arnaud Le Hors wrote: > 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 01:25:16 UTC