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.

In our issues list, the disjunction issue...
notes our decision to _adopt_ a design for disjunction.

I'm reasonably confident the examples you gave


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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:52:05 UTC