RE: pls consider comments on disjunction


I am pretty much in agreement with you on this issue.  I am
pleased by the clarification that has come about through this
discussion.  However, I would like to have clearer semantics
in the specification itself.  This is a theme that has been
echoed by several people at several times, so hopefully this
is something that can receive further attention from the WG.



-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Connolly
To: Seaborne, Andy
Cc: Thompson, Bryan B.; Personick, Michael R.; '''''RDF Data Access Working
Group ' ' ' ' '; Bebee, Bradley R.
Sent: 3/26/2005 10:41 PM
Subject: Re: pls consider comments on disjunction

I can't tell for sure that the comments are based on a clear
understanding of the design that the WG has adopted. Several
aspects of the comments have turned out to be unfounded;
for example that the variables in a SELECT clause can
reduce the number of solutions, and a number of examples
in sort of hypothetical syntaxes that are claimed to not
work that actually do seem to work when written correctly.

Now that may say something about the clarity of the spec...
I don't have a clear picture of how to improve it, but I'm
sure the editors will accept any help they get there...

But I think I'm not going to re-open the issue at the WG
level until I see a test case that clarifies the issue; i.e. one
written in the real syntax where everybody agrees what
the current spec says is the answer, but somebody thinks
a different answer would be given by a better design.

Dan Connolly, W3C
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Sunday, 27 March 2005 13:36:50 UTC