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 16:21:51 -0600
To: Bob MacGregor <bmacgregor@siderean.com>
Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <1111443711.8271.572.camel@localhost>

On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 13:53 -0800, Bob MacGregor wrote:
> Dan,
> 
> Dan Connolly wrote:
> > > 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
> >   
> I was using the following as a starting point:
> 
> Editors working draft.
>         Live Draft - version:
>         $Revision: 1.262 $ of $Date: 2005/03/21 16:06:44 $
> There are a number of citations, but the one that stands out was dated
> Sept. but says that
> disjunction was tabled.  Also, it says that the committee "closed the
> issue without reaching consensus".
> A reasonable interpretation of is that there is no disjunction.

Oops; sorry that was misleading...
What happened was that we adopted the design over the objection of
a WG member.


> Let us take a closer look, because there is a UNION operator:

OK, I think I see what you're saying. I'll have to talk with
the editors and think it over.


-- 
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 22:21:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:48 GMT