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

RE: source, requirements, design [was: agenda...

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 17:25:37 +0100
Message-ID: <E864E95CB35C1C46B72FEA0626A2E80803E3C0D8@0-mail-br1.hpl.hp.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>
Cc: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

> Please drop the "Is this still a requirement?"
> bullet.

Done.


-------- Original Message --------
> From: Dan Connolly <mailto:connolly@w3.org>
> Date: 27 August 2004 17:02
> 
> On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 11:54, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> [...]
> > Andy and I were trying to balance different examples of provenance in
> > the BRQL spec. It seems that several people want it, but we havent
> > decided what *it* is or of it's a requirement.
> 
> Quite; we have not.
> 
> > 2004-08-23T15:13:41Z <AndyS> (where is this in UC&R?)
> > 2004-08-23T15:14:02Z <ericP> (SOURCE? i don't think it's there.)
> 
> We have a pending objective including...
> 
> "It must be possible for the query language and protocol to allow an RDF
> repository to expose the source from which a query server collected a
> triple or subgraph."
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/UseCases#d4.2
> 
> and an issue
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#i_sourceImplExp
> 
> I notice the design doc says "Is this still a requirement?"
>  -- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#i_sourceImplExp
>   $Revision: 1.39 $ of $Date: 2004/08/24 13:35:32 $
> 
> as if it were a requirement at some point. I don't believe it
> ever was. Please drop the "Is this still a requirement?"
> bullet.
> 
> The lack of a requirement only means that the design
> is *unconstrained* in this respect.
> 
> WG members are free to propose all sorts of designs, including
> those that omit SOURCE altogether... though to do that would
> be to take a position on the pending objective too.
> 
> As of our last telcon discussion[24Aug]
> DaveB is still the issue owner, so he owes us another
> proposal. That's not an exclusive lock or anything, though
> everybody's always welcome to propose ways to address open
> issues -- especially the editors.
> 
> Hmm... that reminds me... I've got an action on this
> issue too...
> 
> [24Aug] http://www.w3.org/2004/08/24-dawg-irc#T14-41-58
>  EricP, where are the minutes?
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 27 August 2004 16:26:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:20 GMT