- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:18:16 -0500
- To: "Thompson, Bryan B." <BRYAN.B.THOMPSON@saic.com>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 11:00 -0400, Thompson, Bryan B. wrote: > Dan, > > If this will make life easier, I am willing to relinquish my objection as it > was mainly procedural. Yes, I think it will make life a bit easier, thanks. > However, I would like to note that what I believe was at issue > was the scope > of the query language specification. I believe that we started voting on > the inclusion of > specific features (as requirements) before there was a consensus on the > scope of the spec., > and I believe that this is an issue that still plagues Sparql. I can see my > way to a much > simpler spec that goes out much sooner, or to a spec. that has more coverage > and that will > still take a while to bring to rec. Do tell. Lacking a time machine, perhaps we can't get that smaller spec that goes out sooner, but maybe I/we can learn a lesson for next time. I remember being in your position... being quite uncomfortable making decisions in the small without a good picture of what the whole would look like. But I haven't really found good techniques for getting groups to get consensus on the scope of the spec otherwise. If you can see a way to do it, I'm very interested. > With the former we can still do the > latter, but right > now we are still in feature rich territory. Extensible value testing was > the first of many > such features that have made for a more complex specification. > > My appologies for being unable to make today's telcon. Perfectly understandable. > I have a conflict in > a few minutes > and I did not think that it was worth while to be there for 30 minutes. > > -bryan -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 12 April 2005 16:18:18 UTC