- From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 11:19:27 -0400
- To: W Martens <martens.wim@gmail.com>, jorge.perez.rojas@gmail.com, jeen.broekstra@gmail.com, Marcelo Arenas <marcelo.arenas1@gmail.com>, Sebastián Conca <sconca87@gmail.com>
- CC: www-archive@w3.org, Axel Polleres <axel@polleres.net>
Hi Wim, Jorge, Jeen, Marcelo, and Sebastian, (Please note that this is not an official working group response to your respective comments on property paths in the current SPARQL 1.1 Query last call working draft.) I want to thank you all again for your research, experiences, suggestions, and comments on SPARQL 1.1 property paths. They've been very valuable to the working group. The group has spent some time in the past few weeks considering various options in an attempt to address the implementation and evaluation challenges that you have all raised while still respecting our group's schedule, implementers' burdens, and the use cases we've identified for property paths. Today, we reached consensus within the group on an approach that we feel addresses your concerns while still leaving room for implementation experience going forward to inform additional design decisions in the future. We haven't yet worked this design into the query document, which is why this isn't an official WG response to your comments. Yet before we go ahead and publish a new Last call, we'd like to know if you support this new design and if you believe that it does indeed address your comments. The design is summarized in these two emails by Andy Seaborne: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JanMar/0285.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JanMar/0286.html I'd very much appreciate it if you can take a look at this and let me know what you think. thanks, Lee
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2012 15:20:04 UTC