ISSUE-54: Do we need (descriptions of) property functions in SD? Is this in scope for us?
Do we need (descriptions of) property functions in SD? Is this in scope for us?
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- Raised by:
- Opened on:
- 2010-02-16
- Description:
- Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- SPARQL WG Agenda Tuesday May 4, 2010 (from lee@thefigtrees.net on 2010-05-03)
- Re: ISSUE-54: Do we need (descriptions of) property functions in SD? Is this in scope for us? (from steve.harris@garlik.com on 2010-03-07)
- Re: ISSUE-54: Do we need (descriptions of) property functions in SD? Is this in scope for us? (from lee@thefigtrees.net on 2010-03-07)
- Re: ISSUE-54: Do we need (descriptions of) property functions in SD? Is this in scope for us? (from andy.seaborne@talis.com on 2010-03-07)
- Re: ISSUE-54: Do we need (descriptions of) property functions in SD? Is this in scope for us? (from andy.seaborne@talis.com on 2010-03-07)
- Re: ISSUE-54: Do we need (descriptions of) property functions in SD? Is this in scope for us? (from greg@evilfunhouse.com on 2010-03-05)
- Re: ISSUE-54: Do we need (descriptions of) property functions in SD? Is this in scope for us? (from andy.seaborne@talis.com on 2010-03-05)
- Re: ISSUE-54: Do we need (descriptions of) property functions in SD? Is this in scope for us? (from lee@thefigtrees.net on 2010-03-04)
- Re: ISSUE-54: Do we need (descriptions of) property functions in SD? Is this in scope for us? (from andy.seaborne@talis.com on 2010-03-04)
- Re: ISSUE-54: Do we need (descriptions of) property functions in SD? Is this in scope for us? (from gearon@ieee.org on 2010-03-03)
- Re: ISSUE-54: Do we need (descriptions of) property functions in SD? Is this in scope for us? (from greg@evilfunhouse.com on 2010-03-02)
- Re: ISSUE-54: Do we need (descriptions of) property functions in SD? Is this in scope for us? (from andy.seaborne@talis.com on 2010-02-22)
- Re: ISSUE-54: Do we need (descriptions of) property functions in SD? Is this in scope for us? (from greg@evilfunhouse.com on 2010-02-17)
- Re: ISSUE-54: Do we need (descriptions of) property functions in SD? Is this in scope for us? (from lee@thefigtrees.net on 2010-02-17)
- Re: ISSUE-54: Do we need (descriptions of) property functions in SD? Is this in scope for us? (from steve.harris@garlik.com on 2010-02-17)
- Re: ISSUE-54: Do we need (descriptions of) property functions in SD? Is this in scope for us? (from gearon@ieee.org on 2010-02-17)
- Re: ISSUE-54: Do we need (descriptions of) property functions in SD? Is this in scope for us? (from greg@evilfunhouse.com on 2010-02-16)
- Re: ISSUE-54: Do we need (descriptions of) property functions in SD? Is this in scope for us? (from steve.harris@garlik.com on 2010-02-16)
- Re: ISSUE-54: Do we need (descriptions of) property functions in SD? Is this in scope for us? (from lee@thefigtrees.net on 2010-02-16)
- Re: ISSUE-54: Do we need (descriptions of) property functions in SD? Is this in scope for us? (from gearon@ieee.org on 2010-02-16)
- ISSUE-54: Do we need (descriptions of) property functions in SD? Is this in scope for us? (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2010-02-16)
Related notes:
[LeeF]: RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-54 based on the current text for sd:propertyFeature in http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/service-description-1.1/xmlspec.xml#id0x2c8fdce0, noting consensus in mailing list thread http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010JanMar/0487.html
4 May 2010, 14:56:38[LeeF]: see http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-12-21#resolution_4
24 Dec 2010, 19:28:12Display change log