- From: Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 11:29:52 -0500
- To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Cc: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Alexandre Passant <Alexandre.Passant@deri.org>
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 <lee@thefigtrees.net> wrote: <snip/> > Hi Paul, > > I do think that the Working Group considered this issue pretty thoroughly > when the decision was made. See, for example: > > * http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010JanMar/0428.html > (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 questions. > * http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-03-09#Blank_Nodes_in_Delete > (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. Regards, Paul Gearon
Received on Thursday, 17 February 2011 16:30:26 UTC