- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 10:42:15 +0100
- To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "RDF Data Access Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Dan, > I suggest dropping the issues appendix. Good - that is my preference. Done. There's a link to the issues list in rq23. Comments on the issues list: 1/ "cascadedQueries" The name implies to me one query after another, maybe with flows of variables. How about "multpleQueriesPerRequest" which is more neutral to the interactions? 2/ PrefixSyntax has DISTINCT and LIMIT under it. I was confused by that. Should it be a separate issue? Andy -------- Original Message -------- > From: Dan Connolly <> > Date: 29 September 2004 23:42 > > I just checked for news in the SPARQL draft > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/ > and I see $Revision: 1.67 $ with the new name, > abstract and such. Good... > > I suggest dropping the issues appendix. Feel free to > keep your own editor's TODO list there, but don't make it look > like a WG issues list. > > The WG issues list is now > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues > > Note that I named all the issues, somewhat arbitrarily. > And I merged a few since the ftf meeting (see changelog for details). > In the future, I'll try to solicit input from the WG > on issue names; I know they occasionally matter and they're > expensive to change. > > > -- > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ > D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 30 September 2004 09:42:48 UTC