- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:39:27 -0500
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Jan 17, 2006, at 3:42 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: [...] > Let us agree that ANY wording we finish up with MUST support the same > results for basic SPARQL patterns, i.e. for the simple entailment > case. In fact, I thought we had already agreed this some time ago. Well, in a little-a agreement sense, yes, there does seem to be a critical mass of support there. But formally, I haven't put any question on rdfSemantics; I'm inclined to sort of decide the whole thing at once, since pulling on any one little string in this sort of thing seems quite likely to unravel large parts of it. I'm hopeful that we do have an agreement in principle and that AndyS will be able to capture it in the editor's draft and incorporate email feedback in the next couple days and that this Thursday, I will be able to do a sort of ceremonial "PROPOSED: that rq23 v1.xyz addresses rdfSemantics; any objections? hearing none, so ordered." -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2006 21:39:32 UTC