W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > March 2005

Re: Disjunction vs. Optional ... and UNION

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:15:01 -0600
To: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org, Bob MacGregor <bmacgregor@siderean.com>
Message-Id: <1111436101.8271.537.camel@localhost>

> 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 C29E
Received 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