Re: comment on update

Hi Paul,

I reworded the proposed answer slightly to possibly reflect that we might consider his input when we get to the update semantics... 
If you want to change that wording please feel free:

http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:RH-1

thanks!
Axel

On 2 Apr 2010, at 17:42, Paul Gearon wrote:

> Hi Axel,
> 
> I get the impression that Ross is well aware of what we've been doing.
> I believe that he is offering his calculus as a contribution to the
> SPARQL Update effort since we have not had the opportunity to develop
> one for ourselves.
> 
> Regards,
> Paul Gearon
> 
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > just read http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Mar/0009.html and added it to the comments...
> > not sure what to think of it. The mail doesn't really indicate any suggestions.
> >
> > I would be inclined to answer something short along the following lines. Agreed?
> >
> > ==========================
> > Dear Ross,
> >
> > Thanks for the input. You can check the current working draft of the SPARQL/Update specification
> > that the group is working on, which is an evolution of the SPARQL/Update proposal you cite in your paper [4], at:
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-update/
> >
> > Comments on this document are highly welcome!
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Axel, on behalf of the WG
> > ==========================
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Received on Friday, 2 April 2010 17:19:33 UTC