W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2006

Re: Go ahead with pub

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 08:30:18 -0400
Message-Id: <4408C89C-E3F9-46A7-B2E4-F4900DAE124D@monkeyfist.com>
Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: andy.seaborne@hp.com

On Oct 2, 2006, at 6:06 AM, Seaborne, Andy wrote:

>> I would like that to be deleted because it's confusing on several   
>> levels (e.g., why doesn't it apply in optional?) I don't  
>> particularly  care that it'd done before pub, but it seems an easy  
>> enough move. I  mean, it doesn't *change* anything!
> This text does seem out of date: the objection from DaveB was  
> withdrawn and I can't find a record of any other (I just checked  
> with Steve).
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#disjunction
> It is confusing.  But I'd like the chair's permission as confirmation.

It's on *my* list of document warts, so, yes, please remove it.

Received on Monday, 2 October 2006 12:37:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:52 UTC