Re: comment about LET/issue 57 and http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-sparql-features-20090702/#Subqueries from Lee Feigenbaum on 2010-07-15 (public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org from July 2010)

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 14:11:15 -0400
To: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
CC: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <4C3F4F43.8030605@thefigtrees.net>

On 7/15/2010 2:07 PM, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>
> I suggest section 2.2.4 of your new WD should reference issue 57 -
> concerning which TopQuadrant has a strong opinion

Thanks, Jeremy. We hope to have resolved the issue one way or the other 
before publishing our next WD.

> On a related issue, reading
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-07-06
>
> My belief is that TopQuadrant would object to option 1 (no LET) - but
> have no particular allegiance to the word "LET" as opposed to e.g.
> "BIND". I will check and retract this point of view if needed.

Great, thanks for the clarification.

Lee

>
> Jeremy
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 15 July 2010 18:12:11 UTC