- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:42:38 -0600
- To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
I asked, via Ralph, for input from the Best Practices/Deployment WG on some DAWG/SPARQL issues. Though we haven't closed the loop, I would still like to. I just read that you have formally disposed of these actions... [[ Action review: ============== ACTION: Guus to contact someone regarding "source response" issue Dropped, weak belief that DAWG have now resolved this issue. ACTION: Ralph to report back to dawg that we can't figure out what the "unsaid" problem is precisely DONE http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-semweb-cg/2005Jan/0034.html ]] -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Jan/0150.html Let me ask that you take them (or something like them) up again. Yes, we resolved the SOURCE issue, but we did so without the benefit of input from the BPD WG. Any such input is still in order; it may well provide sufficient new information to reopen the issue. I wonder if the unsaid issue is still insufficiently clear.. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#unsaid if so, it suggests our usecases/requirements docs isn't clear, since the issue pretty much comes from the objective... It must be possible to query for the non-existence of one or more triples or triple patterns in the queried graph. objective 4.3 Non-existent Triples accepted 2004-07-15 http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-rdf-dawg-uc-20041012/#d4.3 -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 31 January 2005 21:42:41 UTC