- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 08:27:41 -0500
- To: "Thompson, Bryan B." <BRYAN.B.THOMPSON@saic.com>
- Cc: "''public-rdf-dawg@w3.org' '" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
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/
Received on Tuesday, 1 June 2004 09:28:12 UTC