- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 14:53:09 +0100
- To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- CC: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 27/07/2010 2:24 PM, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: > On 7/26/2010 1:02 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote: >>> ======================================================================= >>> ISSUE-1 >>> >>> How to specify BasicFederatedQuery in a way that acknowledges optional >>> nature of feature& security issues >>> >>> Anybody has a proposal on this? >>> My proposal would be to just keep it in a separate document and mark >>> it as "SHOULD" or "MAY be implemented" plus tie it to a feature in sd: >> >> I thought we had decided that, on balance, it would go in the query doc. >> It would be edited separately for now but merged in when stable. > > I thought that the optionality (?) of the whole thing was still up in > the air? Though there was a leaning towards making SERVICE optional and > BINDINGS required? That's my recollection so BINDINGS is definitely in the query doc. IIRC we decided that, on balance, if it's just SERVICE, then a whole doc for it would be appreciable overhead and not enough benefit - an initial para say "optional feature" is sufficient. Andy > >> The grammar includes SERVICE and BINDINGS anyway. > > OK.
Received on Tuesday, 27 July 2010 13:53:53 UTC