On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 11:32 -0600, Pat Hayes wrote: > [...] So, here's an > alternative proposal. We don't get rid of them by > tweaking the definition: we leave the definition > naive, think of it as a necessary condition on > answer bindings, and we add a remark about answer > sets, that servers are not obliged to deliver > 'redundant' answers. Sounds familiar. That's the "redundancy optional" design option that I suggested back on 4 Oct. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#rdfSemantics I'm not sure why it's more attractive to others now than it was then, but I still like it. > If y'all like this idea, I can do a run through > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/ to > tweak the wordings to fit it. It should, if > anything, get simpler. I'd like to see that. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29EReceived on Thursday, 5 January 2006 14:09:01 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:25 GMT