Re: SPARQL Update 1.1 review part1

Hi Lee,

I'm catching up after being sick, so I'm just getting to this now.

On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Lee Feigenbaum <> wrote:

> Hi Paul,
> I do think that the Working Group considered this issue pretty thoroughly
> when the decision was made. See, for example:
> *
> (email summarizing the possibilities; also see subsequent thread)

Yes, I see the summary. You mentioned 3. Right now I have the document
set (erroneously) to option 2. You only considered 1 and 3 to be
viable, and didn't like option 3. I also note that you needed to
discuss a lot of issues around option 3 because it raised so many

> *
> (telecon discussion that led to the resolution)

You've already mentioned this. Unfortunately, I wasn't there to vote
against it. I obviously didn't realize the significance when reviewing
the minutes.

> I'm not inclined to revisit this decision at this point in time. Please let
> me know if you see something significantly new and would like the working
> group to consider it.

Well it does appear that the issues were considered. I suppose I'm not
going to create a roadblock for the working group at this late stage,
but I think it's a bad idea. This email can serve as a record that I
strongly object to this resolution.

Paul Gearon

Received on Thursday, 17 February 2011 16:30:26 UTC