Re: DAWG meeting record 5 July 2005

On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 05:42:12AM -0400, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:

> I've left the question but commented out the disposition.
> For context, DanC wasn't sure where to go with the stabil bNode issue
> so I asked "of the +1s and +.5s, who is willing to postpone so long
> was we don't do something with the syntax that makes it difficult.
> I recall positive sounds from LeeF, SteveH, Elias, and PatH. I don't
> recall your or Souri's responses. Unfortunately, the scribe (me) was
> busy talking and failed to write it down.

Which, as I tried to suggest, seems like kinda thin grounds for the claimed

I realize that people's pants are on fire to go to LC, but there's an issue
here that at the very least the WG hasn't considered fully enough yet (or
hadn't, at the *very* least, till recently).

I for one would rather postpone LC for a bit (even if only for the past
week!) and consider this issue *now*, than to get slammed by folks during LC
for not having a coherent position.

As others have pointed out, as people start using SPARQL in anger, some of
them are raising this issue.

Forewarned is forearmed, or some such.

Kendall Clark

Received on Thursday, 7 July 2005 13:18:51 UTC