[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CAP draft 07 issues - sections 3 and 4




Alan Davies wrote:


Your mean (4)?

I agree that they need to be tossed. I really wish you had been
active on the list a few months ago.




If the two clauses are 'tossed', they should be replaced with a clear,
unambiguous explanation of the meaning of querying a multi-instance
just by property name (i.e. does it mean 'any' instance of that property,
or 'all' instances of that property), rather than ignoring the issue
as SQL-MIN did.


We agree - lets clear up the text.


It should also be noted that only 1 of the above queries could be
represented if the clauses were 'tossed' (we would have to choose
whether the two references to ATTENDEE in the first two examples
would refer to the same or different properties).




In what case would 'two' ATTENDEEs be from the 'same' property?
ATTENDEE is a single valued, multiinstance property.