- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:03:23 -0600
- To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Most of the comments continue to get handled by the editors etc., forwarding to the WG as appropriate. One that I'm not sure what to do with is the thread beginning... Disjunction vs. Optional ... and UNION Bob MacGregor (Sunday, 20 March) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Mar/0034.html Our decision on the disjunction and nestedOptionals issues... http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#disjunction http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#nestedOptionals are binding here... the question is whether this is sufficient new information that I should reopen the issue. My own investigation is inconclusive. I encourage WG members to study it and let me know if you want the issue re-opened or not. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 24 March 2005 19:03:24 UTC