- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 07:44:38 -0400
- To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 29 Sep 2009, at 04:19, Seaborne, Andy wrote: > Is there going to be a requirements phase? We're in one. > We seem to discussing requirements in the guise of implicit > assumptions in the proposed text. The text was a dumping of thoughts to try to provide a concrete focus for discussion..by and large we tried to include design alternatives. I personally find it easier to discuss requirements in context. There should be a pull back at some point. > How are issues going to be handled? > The WG has an issue tracker - is that going to be used? Who arises > issues? I guess that's for the chairs. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2009 11:45:12 UTC