- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 08:30:18 -0400
- To: andy.seaborne@hp.com
- Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Oct 2, 2006, at 6:06 AM, Seaborne, Andy wrote: >> I would like that to be deleted because it's confusing on several >> levels (e.g., why doesn't it apply in optional?) I don't >> particularly care that it'd done before pub, but it seems an easy >> enough move. I mean, it doesn't *change* anything! > > This text does seem out of date: the objection from DaveB was > withdrawn and I can't find a record of any other (I just checked > with Steve). > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#disjunction > > It is confusing. But I'd like the chair's permission as confirmation. It's on *my* list of document warts, so, yes, please remove it. Cheers, Kendall
Received on Monday, 2 October 2006 12:37:45 UTC