- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 07:55:01 -0600
- To: James Cerra <jfcst24_public@yahoo.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
You're welcome to send comments to the comments mailing list (public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org) but the WG mailing list (public-rdf-dawg@w3.org) is for WG discussions, please. In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005JanMar/0282.html you wrote: > Yes yes yes yes yes! This should be a v1 requirement! One large omission from > the spec is how to handle collections and containers. and you gave an example, but it was an artificial (xyz) example; the WG was well aware of this ommission when we decided to postpone this issue. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#accessingCollections http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005JanMar/att-0202/22-dawg-minutes.htm#item07 We will only reconsider our decision if we have new information. The most relevant information is use cases/stories that say why it's better to delay the release of SPARQL to get this feature in, rather than release SPARQL as is and add it later. So far, not very many WG members see a pressing need for this feature. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 14 March 2005 13:55:14 UTC