- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 13:42:07 -0500
- To: andy.seaborne@hp.com
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Geoff Chappell <geoff@sover.net>
On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 13:13 +0100, Seaborne, Andy wrote: > The handling of optionals needs to be refined - this isn't changing the test > cases and user problem that optionals solves, it a matter of getting a definition > that works. [...] > Details still need to be worked out but I'd appreciate comments and feedback on > the approach. I read the whole mail message, but what I learned was that it's the sort of thing I need to read a lot more slowly in order to evaluate. As I'm already very late with the agenda, I'm not sure when/if I'll get to this. I hope others can study it and advise. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 27 June 2005 18:42:10 UTC