- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 08:27:41 -0600
- To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 08:59 -0500, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: [...] > I'd like the change the question from "are people going to complain if > we don't have this feature?" to "is SPARQL useful to many folks without > this feature?". Your wish is my command... i.e. I have done that in many cases. I have been answering comments that involve the edge of our scope that way; e.g. [[ > *** Language features *** > where's the INSERT? [...] insert/update isn't among our requirements or even objectives so far. i.e. the WG seems to think we can advance the state of the art without doing INSERT just yet. If you think W3C shouldn't do a QL at all without insert, please elaborate. ]] -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Mar/0044.html > I think the 80/20 rule and "it's version 1" is a > perfectly valid response to last call requests for features. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 22 March 2005 14:27:43 UTC