Re: Proposed: SPARQL grammar is complete as-is

On 2010-12-23, at 11:34, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
>> No, I just didn't want to put any significant effort into checking it over pre-freeze if I was looking at the wrong version. I've not really been following the grammar, it's not my area, and Garlik's grammar maven is on holiday.
> Right, understood. Maybe I ought to have said "syntax" rather than "grammar" -- the point I'm getting at is whether or not -- in spirit if not to the last byte of the grammar -- we're at a point where we've reached consensus on SPARQL 1.1 syntax issues.

OK, I see. Yes, I think we've stopped digging.

- Steve

Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD

Received on Thursday, 23 December 2010 11:38:08 UTC