RE: ACTION-605 follow-up: property path commenters' reactions

Dear all,

First Lee thanks for collecting the opinions of the commenters.
after reading through the thread, my personal impression of the main reason for disagreement is that the group consensus from last week and the commenters' view 
are orthogonal (but both valid) viewpoints of what is a "natural" 
semantics for PPs. 

Axel 

 
-- 
Dr. Axel Polleres 
Siemens AG Österreich 
Corporate Technology Central Eastern Europe Research & Technologies 
CT T CEE 
 
Tel.: +43 (0) 51707-36983 
Mobile: +43 (0) 664 88550859
Fax: +43 (0) 51707-56682 mailto:axel.polleres@siemens.com 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee Feigenbaum [mailto:figtree@gmail.com] On Behalf Of 
> Lee Feigenbaum
> Sent: Tuesday, 10 April 2012 4:06 AM
> To: SPARQL Working Group
> Subject: ACTION-605 follow-up: property path commenters' reactions
> 
> As per ACTION-605, I reached out to our property path 
> commenters and asked if our current resolution to the 
> property path comments satisfied their concerns.
> 
> Summary: the commenters are not thrilled with the design 
> choices the group has made in resolving their comments on 
> property path evaluation performance; some of them do believe 
> that the new design addresses the performance concerns, while 
> others are unsure or chose to remain silent.
> 
> You can read the discussion (note that it is strictly unofficial) at: 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2012Apr/0013.html
> 
> Tomorrow, we should decide whether--based on this 
> feedback--we wish to adjust last week's resolution, or if we 
> should stick with it.
> 
> My recommendation is that we stay with our decision. We had a 
> strong consensus on it last week, and I believe that it is a 
> well-motivated, conservative design that does address the 
> Last Call comments, while leaving room for property paths to 
> be extended and improved in subsequent standardization rounds.
> 
> Lee
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2012 10:58:08 UTC