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

Re: On the treatment of Design Objectives?

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 11:30:26 -0500
To: Yoshio Fukushige <Fukushige.Yoshio@jp.panasonic.com>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1084293026.32025.435.camel@dirk>

On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 11:13, Yoshio Fukushige wrote:
> Hello, all
> 
> I want to know what you think we should do with the design objectives.
> 
> Are we going to standardize the protocols for optional functionalities
> listed in the  design objectives section,
> or jest leave them to the developers?

I understand an objective to be something like a goal; i.e. the WG
would like to get it done, but the WG is prepared to declare
victory even if we haven't done it.

> In the latter case, there could be varieties of them designed by different
> developers.
> Are we happy with that?
> 
> I think there are two types of optional functionalities:
> (1) those would require too much time to make standards for
> (2) those relatively easy to make standards for, but not suitable to force
> all implementations to support
> 
> I propose for us to write the standard protocols for those of type (2)
> above, and mark them "OPTIONAL."

Optional protocol elements work against interoperability, so I would
like to see more motivation. Do you have any particular topics
in mind for optional protocols?

Is this proposal directed at the use cases & requirements document?
If so, could you be more specific about wording?

> I know if we introduce levels of implementation, we need some protocol for
> negotiating the conversation level
> between the server and the client, but I think we need it at the end of the
> day (cf. UC 2.6)
> 
> What do you say?
> 
> # I wanted to discuss it in the telecon, but there was not enough time...
> 
> Best regards,
> Yoshio
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
see you at the WWW2004 in NY 15-21 May?
Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2004 12:30:20 GMT

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