- From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 23:15:04 -0500
- To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Cc: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>, SPARQL Working Group WG <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Feb 16, 2010, at 12:28 PM, Steve Harris wrote: > On 16 Feb 2010, at 17:23, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: > >> I'd be surprised if anyone disagrees that this is useful. >> >> However, I have no idea how we would specify it in the service description document. How would we define a property/class that describes something that is not itself defined anywhere? The only way I see to do it is to define what a property function is, and that's beyond our scope. > > Right, this is my feeling too. Can I take this to mean that my suggested wording isn't acceptable? I'm not sure we need to define exactly what happens when a property function does its thing so long as we indicate that it's up to the implementation, but others may think differently. .greg
Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 04:15:36 UTC