- From: James Anderson <anderson.james.1955@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2024 20:21:17 +0200
- To: RDF-star Working Group <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
good evening; > On 3. Oct 2024, at 19:11, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote: > > > > On 03/10/2024 17:01, James Anderson wrote: >> good afternoon; >>> On 3. Oct 2024, at 17:54, thomas@pellissier-tanon.fr wrote: >>> >>> Thank you for raising your concern! >>> >>>> ... >>> >>> Sorry for the bold question: do you plan to commit to setup this WG? Launching a WG is a lot of work and I am not sure the current SPARQL editors have enough time for that. I tend to think doing something is better than nothing and 11 years after SPARQL 1.1 it's maybe time to get something done. >>> >>> Thomas >> were there to be a working group - not a community group, to consider the issues related to exists/parameters/lateral i would certainly be prepared participate. >> i contributed to the community group for exists during its existence, i am aware of andy seaborne's effort and have corresponded with him on the topic, but i never had the impression that the work had reach the point of maturity that it should be considered for inclusion in a recommendation. > > All my communication with james has been in public. not entirely. we corresponded privately during march 2017 for several days, at a time when your email address included topquadrant. the topic, as i find it in the thread was "another problem with proposal B". it was unfortunate that the sparql-dev "SEP" setting itself has no provision to publicly record deliberation specific to an SEP topic and the correspondence was not on the mailing list. best regards, from berlin, --- james anderson | james@dydra.com | https://dydra.com
Received on Thursday, 3 October 2024 18:21:34 UTC