- From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:25:57 -0500
- To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Cc: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>, SPARQL Working Group WG <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Feb 17, 2010, at 8:48 AM, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: > (Greg reminded me where the suggested text was.) The suggested text was: > > """ > "Claimed support for a property function indicates that the implementation may make use of custom code in matching any triple pattern that uses the property in the predicate position. The specific mechanism used to perform this matching is undefined." > """ > > I don't think I'd be too happy with this. It's (intentionally) a pretty vague definition, but I don't see how a vague (non-)definition helps anyone. As a W3C Rec, either we're producing something that people can use unambiguously, or we should leave it out. I don't think it benefits anyone to do what seems to me to amount to a "wink wink nudge nudge you know what we're talking about" thing, which this feels like to me. > > As Steve said, one of the points of service description is to allow the community to coalesce around extension descriptions beyond what we standardize. I think the ESW Wiki or the new W3C Semantic Web wiki would be good places to coalesce around how to describe property function support (and then to include specific property function URIs, as Paul asks for). With Lee and Steve both vocally questioning the property functions support, this seems like a reasonable discussion to point Leigh at and simply say there wasn't enough support based on the lack of a spec to point at. thanks, .greg
Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 15:26:28 UTC