- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:15:01 -0600
- To: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org, Bob MacGregor <bmacgregor@siderean.com>
> The committee has shelved disjunction and retained optional. Er... really? I'm not sure what leads you to that conclusion. The text you quoted was from a proposal to drop the disjunction requirements... a proposal which did *not* carry. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JulSep/0604.html In our issues list, the disjunction issue... http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#disjunction notes our decision to _adopt_ a design for disjunction. I'm reasonably confident the examples you gave http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Mar/0034.html work in that design (modulo syntactic details), but I'll look into making test cases out of them to be sure. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 21 March 2005 20:15:09 UTC