- From: Andrew Newman <andrewfnewman@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 07:27:50 +1000
- To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Cc: public-sparql-dev@w3.org
Okay - well I thought that maybe it wasn't feasible for some reason rather than just not a use case requirement. Using FILTER is a reasonable work around for now - as I'm looking at implementation and useability there might be some advantage in coming up with a DIFFERENCE operator (or something of that nature). On 7/12/06, Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com> wrote: > > The ultimate reason is because no one asked for it! The use case and > requirements process didn't identify it as a requirement and no > commenter or working group member made a proposal. > > Andy >
Received on Tuesday, 11 July 2006 21:28:08 UTC