This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
It is not clear which of three operations is meant in the statement (in section 4.5) that "If two alternatives are compatible, their intersection is an alternative containing all of the assertions in both alternatives". I can see four significantly different possible interpretations of this. Suppose alternative 1 consists of [A B B C C C] and alternative 2 consists of [B C C D D]. Then the "intersection" of these could be * Bag union: [A B B B C C C C C D D] (all occurrences of all assertions from 1 together with all occurrences of all assertions from 2) * Bag intersection: [B C C] (A is not in both, B occurs (at least) once in both, C occurs (at least) twice in both, D is not in both) * Set union: {A B C D} (all assertions from 1 together with all assertions from 2) * Set intersection: {B C} (all assertions occurring in both 1 and 2). Though set intersection and set union seem to match the text most closely, it seems unlikely that this is what is meant, given that alternatives are bags and multiplicity is in some way significant. The spec should say explicitly which operation is meant.
<cferris> If two alternatives are compatible, their intersection is an alternative <cferris> containing <cferris> all of the occurrences of all of the assertions from each of the alternatives <cferris> (i.e., the bag <cferris> union of the two). <cferris> RESOLUTION: issue 4553 closed with the above text modifying the existing text in section 4.5 http://www.w3.org/2007/05/23-ws-policy-minutes.html#item08