- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 16:47:28 +0100
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: "Lee Feigenbaum" <lee@thefigtrees.net>, "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 27 Jul 2010, at 14:53, Andy Seaborne wrote: > 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. Ok, the usual way to do this would be just to make the respective section "Informative", wouldn't it? Axel > Andy > > > > >> The grammar includes SERVICE and BINDINGS anyway. > > > > OK. > > >
Received on Tuesday, 27 July 2010 15:48:02 UTC