RE: ACTION: writeup of joseki in response to action taken at last DAW G telcon.

On Tue, 2004-06-01 at 08:19, Thompson, Bryan B. wrote:
> Dan,
> 
> I think that joseki is just a poor choice for this evaluation.  It is
> essentially a protocol, which I didn't realize when I offered to write
> it up.

OK.

>   In order to match joskeki against query language requirements
>  you need to write up the query language.
> 
> My suggestion is that we refactor our requirements into protocol
> and query-language requirementsw and that we evaluate them seperately.

I wonder if that's a good idea... requirements are there to capture
what the users require, not to make it easy to evaluate designs.

> We can then pick and choose combinations as candidates for DAWG.
> 
> Just writing up, e.g., joseki + RDQL, is going to hide the fact that
> we could have just as easily bundled a completely different query
> language with the joseki protocol.

And so...?

> Maybe we can put this on the agenda for today?

Might as well.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/