- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 15:08:49 +0100
- To: "Kendall Clark" <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Cc: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, "RDF Data Access Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Done and committed to CVS. Andy -------- Original Message -------- > From: Kendall Clark <> > Date: 2 October 2006 13:30 > > 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 This text does seem out of date: the objection from DaveB was 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 withdrawn and I can't find a record of any other (I just checked with 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 14:09:21 UTC