- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 16:33:31 -0600
- To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Here's another comment that I'm not quite sure what to do with... Named- and background graphs, triples vs quads, trust, etc. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Mar/0097.html It is perhaps a request that we reconsider the SOURCE issue... http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#SOURCE I'm not in a good position to advocate the WG's decision on that issue; that was the first of N issues that I tried, without success, to get the WG to postpone. (hmm... I'm not on record as abstaining on the decision we took... I wonder why not...) The comment suggests "move the choice of arrangement into the query language," which I don't think we considered. Perhaps that's sufficient new information to re-open the issue. The comment says it's a follow-up from discussion with Andy, so I doubt he's in a position to defend the current design to the satisfaction of the commentor; it seems he's already tried. DaveB, you were involved in some proposals that led up to the WG's decision... you're more than welcome to give it a try. The comment is also perhaps input to our most long-standing open issue fromUnionQuery. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#fromUnionQuery I don't have any actions assigned about that one... I don't really have any plan for addressing it. I'm all ears. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2005 22:33:33 UTC