- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard.cyganiak@deri.org>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:02:10 +0000
- To: public-rdb2rdf-comments@w3.org
Hi David, This is a formal WG response to your LC comments here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-comments/2011Oct/0022.html As mentioned earlier, we raised a number of issues in response to your comments: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-comments/2011Nov/0013.html These issues now all have been resolved as follows: ISSUE-70: Behaviour of fully qualified column names in rr:sqlQuery http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/70 Addressed as described here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-comments/2011Nov/0022.html ISSUE-71: Column name collisions between child and parent queries in RefObjectMaps http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/71 Addressed as described here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-comments/2011Nov/0023.html ISSUE-73: Section 11 cleanup http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/73 Addressed by an editorial pass over the section (r1.187) ISSUE-74: Re-organize the table in Appendix B.2 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/74 We acknowledged that this would be good, but resolved not to do any changes due to time constraints: http://www.w3.org/2011/11/29-RDB2RDF-minutes.html#item03 ISSUE-75: Reconsider rr:tableName syntactic sugar http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/75 We resolved to drop the syntactic sugar: http://www.w3.org/2011/12/13-RDB2RDF-minutes.html#item04 All the best, Richard
Received on Friday, 20 January 2012 13:02:40 UTC