- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 13:30:45 +0200
- To: "ext Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Mar 24, 2004, at 12:13, ext Seaborne, Andy wrote: > > > LDAP: Assumes a planned deployment. And my address book is an RDF > file, not > a RDF-fronted LDAP server. I think it would be useful if we presume that the target of any particular query (or query exchange between client and server) is an RDF graph. How that RDF graph is realized should be irrelevant to our specifications. It could be an RDF/XML instance, a native RDF triples store, an RDF interface to a RDBMS or LDAP server, a student/slave chained to a workstation/terminal, whatever. While it will be the case that real-world scenarios will have to deal with how those RDF graphs are realized, that shouldn't IMO affect our requirements or resulting recommendation, and the less we talk about underlying machinery that should be below the line of opacity, the better (presuming we all agree where that line should be drawn, of course ;-) Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Nokia, Finland patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2004 06:40:26 UTC