- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 16:52:05 -0600
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
> >> >>Your message is full of argument that isn't directly supported >>by WG records. That's fine if the WG endorses it... >> >>Meanwhile, I took some similar liberties in my message... >>some of which are arguably wrong. >> >>Hmm... I'll have to think this over. > >No, lets stick to protocol, it would be a good discipline to get >back to. Sorry I squirted this off in 'explain intuition' mode >rather than 'respond official' mode. I will correct in time for >Tuesday. Yeh, well, having tried, I can't find anything in the logs which really supports anything in my proposed reply, I have to confess. I recall Jos saying that he liked treating query bnodes as blank variables, and Enrico that he didn't, but I don't think the relevant IRC log has made it into the archive yet. I guess I could cite emails in the email archive, but that hardly seems to satisfy protocol. Not sure how to proceed at this point. I could tweak the wording of the reply so that it doesn't refer to anything that the WG 'decided' but is phrased purely informatively, maybe? Your call. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Friday, 27 January 2006 22:52:16 UTC