- From: Yoshio Fukushige <Fukushige.Yoshio@jp.panasonic.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 22:44:48 +0900
- To: "RDF Data Access Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
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