- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:03:02 -0500
- To: Richard Newman <r.newman@reading.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
On Wed, 2005-08-10 at 09:34 -0700, Richard Newman wrote: [...] > This being last call, it is not the time to be discussing core > decisions, such as features, support for inference, etc., so I'll > leave those, and finish here. Well, we'd like to think that we've reached consensus with the community on requirements, yes. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-dawg-uc/ But if you would like us to reconsider our position on requirements, that's not strictly out of order at this point. Better to let us know sooner rather than later. > [1] <http://www.holygoat.co.uk/projects/twinql/> > [2] <http://wilbur-rdf.sourceforge.net/> > [3] <http://www.holygoat.co.uk/blog/entry/2005-07-12-3> -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 17 August 2005 23:03:11 UTC