- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:31:04 +0100
- To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Cc: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, 'RDF Data Access Working Group' <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 28 Apr 2009, at 10:32, Seaborne, Andy wrote: [snip] >> I've had some conversation with Boris about Andy's comments and he >> was thinking that not much, > > It's hardly a lot of changes but the use of the entailment > extension point should go in the rdf:text doc as should the > prohibition (if that's what we want to propose) on appearing in > SPARQL results. > >> if any changes were actually needed to rif:text. > > :-) > >> It would be good to get clear on this *before* sending >> comments. Perhaps, Axel, Andy, Boris and I could telcon at some >> point? > > This is to be a WG response, I hope I'm not suggesting otherwise. > not my personal comments and I note Steve is also reviewing the text. Be good to have steve it. > Could the comments go to the WG list? I was merely suggesting that a task force between actively engaged people might help clarify issues. In particular, I'm not as actively engaged as would make me a good substitute for, e.g., Boris. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 28 April 2009 12:27:15 UTC