> The committee has shelved disjunction and retained optional. Er... really? I'm not sure what leads you to that conclusion. The text you quoted was from a proposal to drop the disjunction requirements... a proposal which did *not* carry. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JulSep/0604.html In our issues list, the disjunction issue... http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#disjunction notes our decision to _adopt_ a design for disjunction. I'm reasonably confident the examples you gave http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Mar/0034.html work in that design (modulo syntactic details), but I'll look into making test cases out of them to be sure. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29EReceived on Monday, 21 March 2005 20:15:09 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:48 GMT