- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 14:39:31 -0400 (EDT)
- To: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
In response to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2006Apr/0016.html (excerpted below), I would be very disappointed if concerns related to any ambiguity in the SPARQL documents were *not* brought up in public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org. In my view admonishments to the contrary should either firmly repudiated or the working group should officially monitor and report on the fora to which such comments have been redirected. Peter F. Patel-Schneider [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2006Apr/0016.html] From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com> Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:04:00 +0100 Message-ID: <DF5E364A470421429AE6DC96979A4F6F99A75A@sdcexc04.emea.cpqcorp.net> To: Jorge Pérez <jperez@utalca.cl> Cc: <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org> -------- Original Message -------- > From: Jorge Pérez <mailto:jperez@utalca.cl> > Date: 18 April 2006 17:18 ... > Thanks again for your time, I will start with another thread to discuss > about some *problems* (from my point of view) in the implementation of > SPARQLer (ARQ) that reflects other ambiguities in the definitions of > the last draft. > > > > - Jorge This is the DAWG working group comments list. Please send ARQ bug reports to jena-dev@groups.yahoo.com http://jena.sourceforge.net/ARQ/support_request.html Andy
Received on Tuesday, 18 April 2006 18:39:42 UTC