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

Re: pls consider comments on disjunction

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 21:41:03 -0600
To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Cc: "Thompson, Bryan B." <BRYAN.B.THOMPSON@saic.com>, "Personick, Michael R." <MICHAEL.R.PERSONICK@saic.com>, '''''RDF Data Access Working Group ' ' ' ' ' <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, "Bebee, Bradley R." <BRADLEY.R.BEBEE@saic.com>
Message-Id: <1111894863.32006.264.camel@localhost>

I can't tell for sure that the comments are based on a clear
understanding of the design that the WG has adopted. Several
aspects of the comments have turned out to be unfounded;
for example that the variables in a SELECT clause can
reduce the number of solutions, and a number of examples
in sort of hypothetical syntaxes that are claimed to not
work that actually do seem to work when written correctly.

Now that may say something about the clarity of the spec...
I don't have a clear picture of how to improve it, but I'm
sure the editors will accept any help they get there...

But I think I'm not going to re-open the issue at the WG
level until I see a test case that clarifies the issue; i.e. one
written in the real syntax where everybody agrees what
the current spec says is the answer, but somebody thinks
a different answer would be given by a better design.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Sunday, 27 March 2005 03:41:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:46 UTC