- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 23:59:05 +0100
- To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Cc: "Gregory Williams" <greg@evilfunhouse.com>, "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Hi Lee, Greg, While the draft answer is sure ok formally, would there be any hint we could give him how to solve his use case differently (without OPTIONS) in compliance with SD, i.e. is there anything we could offer for his scenario: > Rather than having a single endpoint for querying, each graph URI is > its own endpoint. ? Axel On 29 Nov 2011, at 16:55, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: > Looks good to me. > > lee > > On 11/29/2011 10:22 AM, Gregory Williams wrote: > > My draft response to Toby Inkster's recent comment on the use of OPTIONS with service descriptions (TI-3) is ready for review: > > > > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:TI-3 > > > > thanks, > > .greg > > > > > > > >
Received on Sunday, 4 December 2011 22:59:41 UTC