- From: David McNeil <dmcneil@revelytix.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 13:23:24 -0600
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: RDB2RDF Working Group WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
Received on Tuesday, 6 December 2011 19:23:52 UTC
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>wrote: > > Richard - There are several questions identified in Issue-75. It seems > to me that we should hash out consensus on those questions before including > this syntactic sugar to the spec. > > It *is* already in the spec and has been for many months. There were no > objections raised when this feature when it was first proposed. The R2RML > ED went to Last Call, including this feature, with the consensus of the WG. > To complete the story... And a comment came up during Last Call. We discussed the feature in the "face-to-face" and there was agreement that there were several un-answered questions about the feature. We didn't have time to resolve the issues in the face-to-face. An issue was created to capture those questions. Now I would expect the process would be to work the issue, rather than to dismiss the issue. -David
Received on Tuesday, 6 December 2011 19:23:52 UTC