- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 11:41:26 +0000
- To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
I am fine with the response to DR-1. I am also fine with the response to JC-3 in the light of the current draft, but overall I ask myself whether the recent comment by Jorge [1] and what we intend to do about it will also affect JC-3 on the long run? [1] questions the approach of translation to union patterns in general and seems to have some quite reasonable arguments regarding efficiency (exponential answers) and previous work (how XPath does it). Opinions? Axel 1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Oct/0064.html On 2 Nov 2010, at 10:51, Steve Harris wrote: > On 2010-11-01, at 22:44, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > > currently waiting approval: > > > > Proposed response to DR-1 > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010OctDec/0118.html > > > > Proposed response to JC-3 > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010OctDec/0117.html > > They seem fine to me. > > - Steve > > -- > Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited > 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK > +44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/ > Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 > Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD > > >
Received on Tuesday, 2 November 2010 11:42:03 UTC