- From: Alexandre Passant <alexandre.passant@deri.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 21:17:14 +0800
- To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Hi, On 17 Nov 2010, at 02:09, Axel Polleres wrote: > Dear all, > > we still couldn't reach agreement on the update shortcuts emtirely. In principle there are two competing proposals on the table: > > > PROPOSED: Add update shortcuts in LC marked explicitly "AT RISK" and asking for feedback, explicitly about potentially complicating the language, and implementation experience. > vs. > > PROPOSED: postpone ISSUE-59 > > We only voted formally on the former (that would imply closing ISSUE-59) but got a lot of abstentions (4 +1,5 abstain or 0, 0 -1) and there was reservations on going forward with this as a resolution today. The latter had some friends in the group, but I didn't want to vote over it without hearing Alex' opinion. My preference will be for the first option - if we explicitly ask for feedback / objections from the community when publishing the LC. Best, Alex. > > So, my goal would be - without tow much further discussion - put these two up for vote again next time and go with the less controversial one. By less controversial, I mean > a) nobody lying on the road in front of it > b) less abstentions > in that order of priority. > > Axel -- Dr. Alexandre Passant Digital Enterprise Research Institute National University of Ireland, Galway :me owl:sameAs <http://apassant.net/alex> .
Received on Wednesday, 17 November 2010 13:17:58 UTC