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: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 08:50:35 -0500
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040322135034.GA29568@monkeyfist.com>

On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 02:20:25PM +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote:
> I think the DAWG rec could (perhaps should) in fact be two distinct
> documents, the first covering the expression of queries and query 
> results
> in RDF (i.e. the vocabulary and semantics), and the second covering
> protocol issues for clients submitting such queries to knowledge stores.
> 
> We could even choose to have distinct "task forces" within the WG
> focusing specifically on each.

FWIW, I argued as much with some folks in Cannes. I think the query
and protocol parts of our task are entirely orthogonal (though there
is the one bit, in the protocol phase, of figuring out how to
represent query types...), and thus could be handled as separate DAWG
documents. (I know this is insanely early, but Query, Protocol, and
one or two Primers shapes up nicely as DAWG deliverables -- but, hey,
Dan, don't shoot me for talking about this too soon! :>)

I took this position originally because I feared the query bit of our
work would turn into a death march. While I'm less skeptical about
that now, it still seems a smart choice to make, if necessary, to
separate the two issues as cleanly as possible.

(Also, fwiw, I could do without provenance in the first version,
though I'd like to have a predicate in our capabilities vocabulary to
make assertions about provenance.)

Kendall Clark
-- 
Sometimes it's appropriate, even patriotic, to be ashamed
of your country. -- James Howard Kunstler
Received on Monday, 22 March 2004 08:54:45 GMT

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