- From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 19:35:25 -0500
- To: Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>
- CC: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, SPARQL Working Group WG <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 3/3/2010 10:56 AM, Paul Gearon wrote: > On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Gregory Williams<greg@evilfunhouse.com> wrote: > > <snip/> > >> Paul, Andy, Steve, >> >> I'd like to try to push the property function issue forward and see if we can't reach some sort of consensus. Andy and Paul seem to see this as an easy thing to include that would have pragmatic benefits while Steve is worried about not being able to define what a property function is and not being able to defend it as in-scope. Have I got that basically right? Is there any sort of compromise to reach here? > > That covers my point of view, yes. Paul & Andy, Steve & I -- at least -- are concerned that there is no useful way to include service description vocabulary for property functions without defining what a property function is. And I think we all agree that the task of defining what a property function is is out of scope for the group at this time. Speaking for myself, I'm concerned that any text we may come up with will need to be pretty vague, and as such will not be at all testable / will not really help with interoperability. Interoperable implementations will require knowledge outside the spec -- it will require people to know (intrinsically?) what a property function is. That doesn't sound like a healthy spec. to me. I'd suggest that the best way forward is for a proponent of including this to suggest spec. text - with concrete text, perhaps Steve and I can better explain our concerns and/or withdraw our concerns if the text assuages our worries. Would someone be willing to do this? Lee
Received on Friday, 5 March 2010 00:36:11 UTC