Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
* Lee Feigenbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-05-03 00:28-0400]
Dan Connolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 04/17/2007 07:32:01 PM:
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 17:11 -0400, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
[...]
While I have a tiny bit of your attention, I was wondering if your
objection to DESCRIBE still holds, given that DESCRIBE is now an
informative part of the spec.
Really? that's news to me. I hear it was at-risk, not non-normative.
I've had a bit of trouble following the paper trail, but I don't believe
it was ever at-risk. In terms of published drafts, it's been marked
informative since the March 2006 CR publication.
I urge you to withdraw the objection. I can't defend lying down in the
road over DESCRIBE.
I think you already have defended it; that is: The Director
considered this objection earlier when granting CR for SPARQL,
and there's no new information, so there's no reason for him to
consider it again.
I still think it's really bad to have it in the same language as
the rest of SPARQL.
I also think the current spec is goofy when it has DESCRIBE
labelled informative in some places but it's included in the
grammar.
But OK... I guess my formal objection doesn't serve much purpose
any more. I withdraw it.
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
