W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > August 2005

Re: twinql Retrospective

From: Richard Newman <r.newman@reading.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:13:56 -0700
Message-Id: <D4E8F9E8-8C89-4573-8CF5-A203D6C6B6A3@reading.ac.uk>
To: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org

On 17 Aug 2005, at 16:03, Dan Connolly 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.

Perhaps more accurately, the fact that consensus has been reached  
saves me from a more thorough analysis of whether the right goals  
were being approached, rather than whether the approach in the docs  
was right! We are thus all spared additional effort :)

Are there any questions raised by other SPARQL implementers/ 
implementations (such as the "UNION is hard" position) that could use  
another datapoint? I am very willing to answer any questions.

Received on Wednesday, 17 August 2005 23:14:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:21 UTC