public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org from October 2006 by date

Tuesday, 31 October 2006

• Re: Filter scope and optionals Jorge Pérez
• Re: Filter scope and optionals Seaborne, Andy

Monday, 30 October 2006

• Re: Filter scope and optionals Jorge Pérez

Friday, 27 October 2006

• Re: SPARQL OPTIONAL vs UNION treatment of sub-graph matching Seaborne, Andy
• [Fwd: SPARQL OPTIONAL vs UNION treatment of sub-graph matching] Seaborne, Andy

Thursday, 26 October 2006

• SPARQL OPTIONAL vs UNION treatment of sub-graph matching Patrick Shironoshita
• Re: Definition of FilteredBasicGraphPattern in SPARQL grammar Arjohn Kampman
• RE: Definition of FilteredBasicGraphPattern in SPARQL grammar Seaborne, Andy
• Definition of FilteredBasicGraphPattern in SPARQL grammar Arjohn Kampman
• Re: white space in RDFLiteral allowed? Arjohn Kampman
• RE: white space in RDFLiteral allowed? Seaborne, Andy

Monday, 23 October 2006

• white space in RDFLiteral allowed? Arjohn Kampman
• Re: make regex optional in SPARQL Jan Wielemaker
• Re: make regex optional in SPARQL Steve Harris
• make regex optional in SPARQL Henry Story

Monday, 16 October 2006

• Comments on dawg test cases Faisal Alkhateeb

Saturday, 14 October 2006

• Re: Issues with evaluating optional: ... Jorge Pérez

Monday, 9 October 2006

• Re: bnode issue in new spec - impact on test cases? Seaborne, Andy
• Re: browser problem viewing http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20061004/ Eric Prud'hommeaux
• browser problem viewing http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20061004/ Axel Polleres
• Re: bnode issue in new spec - impact on test cases? Bijan Parsia

Saturday, 7 October 2006

• Re: JSON from SPARQL for multiple assertions Richard Newman
• Re: JSON from SPARQL for multiple assertions Lee Feigenbaum
• Re: JSON from SPARQL for multiple assertions conor325
• Re: JSON from SPARQL for multiple assertions Lee Feigenbaum
• JSON from SPARQL for multiple assertions conor325

Friday, 6 October 2006

• bnode issue in new spec - impact on test cases? Dan Brickley
• bnode issue in new spec - impact on test cases? Dan Brickley

Thursday, 5 October 2006

• Re: Why not application/json? Elias Torres
• Re: Why not application/json? Mark Baker
• Re: Why not application/json? Elias Torres
• Why not application/json? Mark Baker

Saturday, 30 September 2006

• SPARQL - UNION - disjunction issue MacLeod Nichols

Last message date: Tuesday, 31 October 2006 15:15:31 UTC