- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 23:27:32 -0400
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
- Cc: Eric Miller <em@w3.org>
A few of us were discussing this at an e-gov Sem Web meeting today -- the idea emerged that the "QL" space (RDQL, RDFQL, etc.) has been largely covered, but we're chartered to do "Data Access" and the "DAL" space seems pretty open - we didn't hit anything great, one idea was RDAL (pronounced Riddle) - none of us liked it, but we all preferred it to BRQL -- anyway, I throw it out that something ending in DAL or using DA might be easier to find than something with QL... At 14:38 -0500 9/5/04, Dan Connolly wrote: >On Sun, 2004-09-05 at 14:34, Dan Connolly wrote: >[...] >> I don't like "RDF Query Language" for the same reason >> I no longer like "XML Schema" -- it's lazy and impolite >> to take the generic name, as if all other RDF query >> languages will cease to be useful and no new ones >> will ever be developed. > >to clarify: it's lazy to *presume* that all other >RDF query language work will go away. It's our >goal to set the standard, but we shouldn't presume >to do so before we've done it. > > >-- >Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ -- Professor James Hendler http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies 301-405-2696 Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab. 301-405-6707 (Fax) Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
Received on Friday, 10 September 2004 03:28:06 UTC