- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:19:08 -0500
- To: kendall@monkeyfist.com
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Tue, 2005-09-27 at 10:09 -0400, Kendall Clark wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 09:04:06AM -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: > > > My question is the same in either case: did we consider this already? > > Just so I'm clear: what's the "this" that yr asking whether we considered it? The "twinql Retrospective", specifically the refinements to DESCRIBE that it suggests. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Aug/0063 > I considered whether DESCRIBE was underspecified (intentionally) and whether > we needed a way for client or server to ask or to say what it actually *did* > in processing DESCRIBE. > > I decided that, in lieu of a fully worked out design, leaving it > underspecified so that people could get experience with different DESCRIBE > behaviors was a good (or, at least, acceptable) thing and one that might > lead naturally to something better in the next version. > > > Does anybody think that it's new information that they would > > like to use to change or reconsider the WG's decision? > > I don't see any new information there. OK, that's the sort of advice I'm after. Thanks. > Cheers, > Kendall > -- > Sad songs and waltzes aren't selling this year... --Cake -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2005 14:24:38 UTC