- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:59:34 -0600
- To: "Thompson, Bryan B." <BRYAN.B.THOMPSON@saic.com>
- Cc: "'public-rdf-dawg@w3.org'" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 15:40 -0500, Thompson, Bryan B. wrote: > Hello, > > If I recall, Bob MacGregor (and perhaps others) have raised some > concerns about the bound() test introducing constraints on evaluation > order. I just checked the issues list and this item is not there. The bound() function comes from our decision on the SOURCE issue http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#SOURCE (I suppose I could elaborate the issue description...) The useMentionOp issue is also relevant http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#useMentionOp Discussion of evaluation order has come up up during our discussion of nestedOptionals http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#nestedOptionals All these issues are closed. > I > was wondering if it should be raised for discussion. Suggestions on how to improve the wording of the spec are always in order, but I don't see new information since we closed the issues above. > I have done a few > searches on the archives, but I can't seem to find the message in which > this was mentioned. I don't recall any discussion of the bound() test interacting with order, but perhaps this is the thread you're thinking of? "If "OR" only evaluates the RHS is the LHS is false (programming language style) we are back in order dependent territory." -- Re: Disjunction vs. Optional ... and UNION http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Mar/0058.html > Thanks, > > -bryan -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 31 March 2005 20:59:36 UTC