- From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 15:24:08 +0100
- To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
I guess there is a major misunderstanding here. I am not by any means against the current spec. I am just proposing to have a very simple *additional* part. Gathering opinions in favour of the current spec does not say anything against my proposal. --e. On 5 Dec 2010, at 15:15, Kendall Clark wrote: > We're happy w/r/t the spec (in pertinent part) as it is. > > Cheers, > Kendall > > On Dec 5, 2010, at 8:56 AM, Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > >> [snip] >> >>> Since we're hearing a pretty strong mixed opinion from the OWL implementers >>> on this list, are there other implementers that we can talk to to ask which >>> of these two approaches they'd prefer? >> >> I talked to a couple of people at ISWC and also before at the DL >> workshop or when I visited other universities. Enrico is the only >> person I have talked to who is stongly against the current spec. >> Several people are for the way the current spec is defined and some >> seem to have no strong preference or a slight preference for one or >> the other. I assume we could organise a teleconf on this topic and >> invite OWL folks via the OWL mailing list to participate, but also the >> public working drafts are announced on the list and so far nobody saw >> the need to comment on this. Anyway, I am happy to do whatever can >> help to move forward with the spec. >> >> Birte >> >>> thanks, >>> Lee >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 309 >> Computing Laboratory >> Parks Road >> Oxford >> OX1 3QD >> United Kingdom >> +44 (0)1865 283520 >> >
Received on Sunday, 5 December 2010 14:24:43 UTC