#swig discussion Re: considering new issues: rdfSemantics, owlIntegration, owlDisjunction

On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 08:18 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
> Given recent discussion and comments, I'm inclined to add
> three issues to our issues list...
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues

FYI, I seem to have gotten TimBL's attention on these
issues in #swig.

Feel free to join in now or read later...

recent feedback on SPARQL

> rdfSemantics -- should queries of equivalent graphs
> give the same answers? Any practical advice about queries
> over infinite graph such as all the RDF axiomatic triples?
> owlIntegration -- some explicit explanation of how OWL integrates
> with SPARQL seems worthwhile.
> owlDisjunction -- the worker example evidently doesn't work
> well with SPARQL as of the 21 July 2005 LCWD. Are there
> mature designs that work better? At a minimum, we should
> be explicit that we don't handle this.
> Are those reasonably good issue names and descriptons?
> The descriptions are easier to change than the names, btw.
> Is that too many or too few issues to cover recent discussions?
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Thursday, 8 September 2005 15:52:30 UTC