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

RE: thoughts and some refs about AFS-2 UC (simplicity, minimalism)

From: Rob Shearer <Rob.Shearer@networkinference.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 11:17:19 -0800
Message-ID: <CFE388CECDDB1E43AB1F60136BEB497302803F@rome.ad.networkinference.com>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Cc: "RDF Data Access Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

> A number of us said, in our introductions to the WG, that we'd like to
> get something simple done soon. Let's follow that up with use cases
> that focus on the very simple conjuctive query that we all *know*
> deserves W3C Recommendation status ASAP.
> 
> My not-so-secret goal is Candidate Rec in six months. To do
> that, we need to stick to functionality that we've already coded.
> Twice. i.e. one or more of us has done the prototype, thrown it
> away, and built it for real.

I definitely agree in principle with not trying to expand our scope too
much, but I absolutely don't want this group to rush a spec out the door
for the sake of getting one out. One more spec (and one more query
language incompatible with all the others) isn't just worthless.
In-the-trenches engineers look at the huge tangle of half-useful
technologies associated with the semantic web and decide it's not worth
the investment.

My stance is that if we can't come up with a recommendation that offers
enough value for widespread adoption (and I believe that the goal is
possible), then we're better off not codifying an irrelevent spec.
Received on Saturday, 20 March 2004 14:17:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:18 GMT