- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 20:08:52 -0600
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
On Wed, 2006-03-29 at 19:59 -0500, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > I believe that the DAWG transition request to CR > (http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/crq349) mischaracterises my > objections expressed in > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2006Feb/0028 > of 22 February 2006 to > > > SPARQL Query Language for RDF, W3C Working Draft 20 February 2006 > > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/. > > I have already responded to this list concerning this > mis-characterisation, in > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2006Mar/0057.html > of 22 March 2006, with the following wording: > > My view is that my message points out some deficiencies in the definitions underlying the design of BGP > querying. I thus do not see how my message can possibly be characterised as not demonstrating design errors. I read those words aloud to Tim Berners-Lee personally, with a number of other witnesses present. > However, in the DAWG transition request to CR, my objections are characterised as being essentially editorial. > I therefore do not believe that the DAWG transition request to CR has a faithful rendering of the outstanding dissent. In reviewing the outstanding dissent with The Director, we're not relying on http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/crq349 alone. We're going over your message of 22 Feb in full, as well as your follow-up of 22 Mar. Wed, 22 Feb 2006 18:56:54 -0500 (EST) http://www.w3.org/mid/20060222.185654.133907622.pfps@research.bell-labs.com http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2006Feb/0028 As this is not a comment on the SPARQL spec, I'm marking it [closed]. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 30 March 2006 02:09:11 UTC