W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2004

RE: UC&R draft: 1.31 (requirements)

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 10:35:17 +0100
Message-ID: <E864E95CB35C1C46B72FEA0626A2E808028A32F2@0-mail-br1.hpl.hp.com>
To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>


I noted that the requirements list att he F2F is not an exhaustive set of
requirements for the WG and actually is scoped as "things we should think
about", not "must include" nor does it assume that the absence from the
published list means we can't include a feature.  So I extracted the
requirements with 9 or more "yes" votes  - there were lots of "9"s - at the
F2F [1].  There was one with 8 votes then there were 2 with "6".  I didn't
include the "8" one as it says "may" so isn't constraining.

8:
* Query results may return source/provenance (straw poll: yes 8, no 3)

6:
* Queries expressing arbitrary RDF data types
   (straw poll on required: yes 6, no: 3)
* Queries for the non-existence of one or more triples in a graph.
   (straw poll: yes 6, no 1)

I agree with Dan's suggestion to adopt 4.1-4.10 in order to make progress.

	Andy

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/ftfreq.txt


-------- Original Message --------
> From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org <>
> Date: 3 May 2004 23:08
> 
> On Mon, 2004-05-03 at 16:05, Kendall Clark wrote:
> > Folks,
> > 
> > I've checked in version 1.31 of the UC&R document. It's my best effort
> > to address the issues raised before, during, and since our F2F
> > meeting.
> 
> Ah... I see you've done a non-trivial pass over the requirements...
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/UseCases#req
> 
> There we find 10 requirements, 4.1 Multi-edged Paths
> thru 4.10 Result Limits.
> 
> That seems to be a reasonable synthesis of the input from the WG.
> In the telcon tomorrow, I'll probably start by considering them
> in bulk: without excluding the possibility of adopting
> more requirements, shall we adopt all 10 of those requirements?
> 
> I'll understand if I need to split the question, but it'll
> save time if I don't.
Received on Tuesday, 4 May 2004 05:35:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:19 GMT