- From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 11:22:27 -0400
- To: Carlos Buil Aranda <cbuil@fi.upm.es>
- CC: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 7/20/2011 10:58 AM, Carlos Buil Aranda wrote: > if we do not include it now, could it be possible to include it later > on, after last call? No, we wouldn't be able to include it in this round of standardization without issuing a new Last Call. Lee > > Carlos > > 2011/7/20 Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net <mailto:lee@thefigtrees.net>> > > On 7/20/2011 10:14 AM, Steve Harris wrote: > > On 2011-07-20, at 03:57, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: > > So, the possible solutions are: > - For the SERVICE VAR semantics > - add a new operation that could allow the > evaluation (operation > which wouldn't be bottom-up) > - define its whole semantics in a new way > - For the boundedness restriction > - specify all cases: it may take a bit long > - remove it? I do not think this is a good idea, how > do we specify > then that a variable is bound (which is needed for the > evaluation > semantics of SERVICE VAR)? > > something missing? any other option? > > > As someone who was a bit uncomfortable including it in the > first place, I'll add another, dramatic option: remove > SERVICE VAR from the specification altogether. > > > That sounds like a good, pragmatic solution, but it would > require a second Last Call, no? > > > Given that we haven't yet published Last Call for this document, no. :-) > > Lee > >
Received on Wednesday, 20 July 2011 15:23:04 UTC