- From: MacLeod Nichols <macleod@stauber-nichols.ca>
- Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 01:09:02 -0400
- To: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
The results of UNION as described could still be accomplished through other uses of the SPARQL language. Therefore omitting the UNION keyword would not greatly change the task of implementing SPARQL. At the same time, users would come to understand that the use of UNION is expensive just as they do when using the same keyword in SQL. So to avoid implementing such as a useful keyword seems unnecessary. M. Nichols Toronto, Canada
Received on Sunday, 1 October 2006 03:08:45 UTC