W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > March 2006

Re: DAWG disjunction objection [closed]

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:10:15 -0600
To: Dave Beckett <dave@dajobe.org>
Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <1142896215.12963.133.camel@dirk.w3.org>

On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 13:01 -0800, Dave Beckett wrote:
> When I was a DAWG working group member, I objected to disjunction:
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#disjunction
> on the grounds of implementation cost.
> At this time over a year later, there are people who have implemented
> it, so I'd withdraw my personal objection to it (I am not speaking for
> my current or former employers).
> However, I've still not found the time in the last year to implement it
> myself in Rasqal, or can see that changing anytime soon.  Other parts of
> SPARQL are higher priority to me.

Noted in Revision 1.134  2006/03/20 23:09:12

> Dave
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 20 March 2006 23:10:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:50 GMT