Re: Go ahead with pub

On Oct 2, 2006, at 10:29 AM, Steve Harris wrote:

> On 2 Oct 2006, at 10:14, Bijan Parsia wrote:
[snip]
>> """@@ Now we are in CR, shouldn't this be deleted?  Need chair's  
>> permission.
>> The working group decided on this design and closed the  
>> disjunction issue without reaching consensus. The objection was  
>> that adding UNION would complicate implementation and discourage  
>> adoption. If you have input to this aspect of the SPARQL that the  
>> working group has not yet considered, please send a comment to  
>> public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org."""
>
> I believe that at the time OPTIONAL did not allow shared variables  
> on OPTIONAL clauses that weren't in the parent clause. It makes a  
> big difference to the complexity of the implementation.

That's good to know, but underscores my point that it's just  
confusing rather than helpful at this juncture.

Cheers,
Bijan.