Re: ISSUE-54: Do we need (descriptions of) property functions in SD? Is this in scope for us? from Andy Seaborne on 2010-03-04 (public-rdf-dawg@w3.org from January to March 2010)

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 13:38:48 +0000
To: Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>
CC: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, SPARQL Working Group WG <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4B8FB7E8.7020805@talis.com>

On 03/03/2010 15:56, Paul Gearon wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Gregory Williams<greg@evilfunhouse.com>  wrote:
>
> <snip/>
>
>> Paul, Andy, Steve,
>>
>> I'd like to try to push the property function issue forward and see if we can't reach some sort of consensus. Andy and Paul seem to see this as an easy thing to include that would have pragmatic benefits while Steve is worried about not being able to define what a property function is and not being able to defend it as in-scope. Have I got that basically right? Is there any sort of compromise to reach here?
>
> That covers my point of view, yes.
>
> Paul

That captures my point of view.

	Andy

Received on Thursday, 4 March 2010 13:39:19 UTC