- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 08:40:12 -0500
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <1096551611.5269.119.camel@dirk>
On Thu, 2004-09-30 at 04:42, Seaborne, Andy wrote: > Dan, > > > I suggest dropping the issues appendix. > > Good - that is my preference. Done. There's a link to the issues list > in rq23. > > Comments on the issues list: > > 1/ "cascadedQueries" > > The name implies to me one query after another, maybe with flows of > variables. Yes, that's the issue, no? Hmm... I can't confirm from any records, but that's the issue I mean for the WG to consider. > How about "multpleQueriesPerRequest" which is more neutral to the > interactions? That's not something I'm inclined to make an issue out of; that's sort of an obviously available design choice. The WG will either choose it or not in due course; I don't feel it's worth me tracking it. Hmm... I'm not sure what to do here... perhaps our discussion re #nestedOptionals will address the #cascadedQueries issue as well. > 2/ PrefixSyntax has DISTINCT and LIMIT under it. I was confused by > that. Should it be a separate issue? DISTINCT and LIMIT were in the issues appendix of rq23 at the point when I copied that list to DataAccess/issues. I gather they're issues the editors are thinking about, but I haven't acknowledged them as WG issues. They're not under prefixSyntax, just after it. But I agree that's confusing, so for now I've struck them. > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues now $Id: issues.html,v 1.22 2004/09/30 13:30:13 connolly Exp $ -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 30 September 2004 13:40:09 UTC