- From: Richard Newman <r.newman@reading.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:13:56 -0700
- 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. -R
Received on Wednesday, 17 August 2005 23:14:03 UTC