Re: New requirement: disjunction

Hello,

I had a talk with Dan and have come to understand that
the UC&R document is a document for describing not exact specifications
but why those requirements are needed.

With this characterization of the document, I stop further wordsmithing.

But my concern remains that the wording is not clear with what is meant
by just saying "based on a disjunction".

Everything can be said to be based on something. so just saying so
is not sufficient.

Anyway, this stuff should be deferred to the specification.

Thank you all.

Best,
Yoshio


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
To: "Rob Shearer" <Rob.Shearer@networkinference.com>
Cc: "Yoshio Fukushige" <fukushige.yoshio@jp.panasonic.com>; "RDF Data Access
Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>; <fuku@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 1:33 AM
Subject: RE: New requirement: disjunction


>
> On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 11:16, Rob Shearer wrote:
> [...]
> > This issue was immediately noticed at the f2f, and I believe the
> > requirement we voted on simply dropped the last prepositional phrase:
> > "...at least one of which must be satisfied."
>
> oops; quiet right. There it is:
> http://www.w3.org/2004/07/15-dawg-irc#T23-04-46
>
> I've fixed the minutes:
>
> [[
> RESOLVED to adopt as a requirement "The query language must include the
> capability to restrict matches on a queried graph based on a disjunction
> of graph patterns, at least one of which must be satisfied.", JosD
> abstaining.
> ]]
> -- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/ftf2
> Revision 1.35  2004/07/20 16:30:10
>
> -- 
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 27 July 2004 09:46:23 UTC