- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 20:43:19 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Geoff Chappell <geoff@sover.net>
Dan Connolly wrote: > 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. That's fine - I realise it does not given much time to dig into the content before the telecon. I got it out to indicate where I'd got to and would expect feedback and comments to be via email, rather than via phone time. Andy
Received on Monday, 27 June 2005 19:43:29 UTC