- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:34:25 +0000
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
- Cc: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
> >> > The term "sophisitic" (sic) has been used. There is no trickery > going on. To be clear I was refering to calling it "syntactic sugar" when it was previously a distinct feature of the language. I don't the definitions are sophistic. I'm out of the office today and discussing stuff of this complexity on a phone is challenging, so I won't attempt it. >
Received on Wednesday, 11 November 2009 17:33:49 UTC