- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 09:31:57 +0100
- To: kendall@monkeyfist.com
- CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Kendall Clark wrote: > On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 04:32:52PM -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: > >>Kendall, I'm standing by for your review of that. > > > In the definition's text "if QS is the set of solution" should be "set of > solutions", I believe. Thanks for catching that - fixed. It's a stock phrase so it's wrong in all the result set definitions. > > The new text discharges the action. I still don't like the design, but > that's a separate (and, for now, moot) question. I'd still like to hear the alternative design that covers the result forms in the match-modify-result processing model (or a different processing model). For ASK, the solutions modifiers only affect the empty/non-empty test of the solution sequence in trivial ways so don't add anything in practice. But the symmetry of the same process everywhere seems valuable. > > Kendall Andy
Received on Friday, 1 July 2005 08:32:05 UTC