- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 12:27:49 -0700
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>,public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> wrote: > > >On 31/05/13 17:00, Sandro Hawke wrote: >> On 05/29/2013 01:47 PM, Steve Harris wrote: >>> [ as a side note I find it bizarre that I'm having to advocate NOT >>> changing a 14 >>> year old, industrially deployed spec, at the 11th hour of the >>> standardisation >>> process, to add a feature that's used by a tiny minority of deployed >>> systems - >>> if anything was to strike an outsider as peculiar about this WGs >>> process, it >>> would surely be this feature ] >> >> I don't understand this complaint at all. This Working Group is >> chartered to provide a standard mechanism for working with and >sharing >> multiple graphs. In the chartering process in 2010, our various >inputs >> all said this was a very high priority. A lot of folks said to add >> Named Graphs or fix reification or something like that. > >Specifically, blank nodes for graph names, not datasets in general. > What 14-year old spec do you think Steve was referring to? > Andy -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Received on Friday, 31 May 2013 19:28:11 UTC