- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 10:34:05 +0100
- To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Oct 2, 2006, at 10:29 AM, Steve Harris wrote: > On 2 Oct 2006, at 10:14, Bijan Parsia wrote: [snip] >> """@@ Now we are in CR, shouldn't this be deleted? Need chair's >> permission. >> The working group decided on this design and closed the >> disjunction issue without reaching consensus. The objection was >> that adding UNION would complicate implementation and discourage >> adoption. If you have input to this aspect of the SPARQL that the >> working group has not yet considered, please send a comment to >> public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org.""" > > I believe that at the time OPTIONAL did not allow shared variables > on OPTIONAL clauses that weren't in the parent clause. It makes a > big difference to the complexity of the implementation. That's good to know, but underscores my point that it's just confusing rather than helpful at this juncture. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 2 October 2006 09:34:30 UTC