Re: draft response to Peter Wharer 2

On Wednesday 03 October 2012 09:08:25 Polleres, Axel wrote:
> Looks ok (shall we - independent of the reply - add this to the Future 
work
> items list?)
+1
> 
> Axel
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lee Feigenbaum [mailto:figtree@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> > Lee Feigenbaum
> > Sent: Dienstag, 02. Oktober 2012 19:43
> > To: Carlos Buil Aranda
> > Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: draft response to Peter Wharer 2
> > 
> > I made some small edits. It's ok with me as is.
> > 
> > Anyone else?
> > 
> > Lee
> > 
> > On 10/2/2012 1:37 PM, Carlos Buil Aranda wrote:
> > > Hi Lee,
> > > 
> > > I updated the response.
> > > 
> > > cheers,
> > > 
> > > Carlos
> > > 
> > > On Tuesday 02 October 2012 13:29:03 Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
> > >> Hi Carlos,
> > >> 
> > >> I don't think that we have consensus that we would want a way to
> > > 
> > > specify
> > > 
> > >> the dataset for a SERVICE call, so I would weaken that
> > 
> > part of your
> > 
> > >> response a bit. Perhaps you could say something like that
> > 
> > the group
> > 
> > >> opted for the current design for simplicity, and hopes to
> > 
> > learn more
> > 
> > >> about how datasets interact with federated query from
> > 
> > implementation
> > 
> > >> experience in order to inform future standardization?
> > >> 
> > >> Lee
> > >> 
> > >> On 10/2/2012 11:59 AM, Carlos Buil Aranda wrote:
> > >>> Dear all,
> > >>> 
> > >>> here you can find a drafted response for Peter Warer:
> > >>> 
> > >>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:PW2
> > >>> 
> > >>> cheers,
> > >>> 
> > >>> Carlos

Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2012 13:42:11 UTC