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

Comments from SWBP&D WG

From: Tom Adams <tom@tucanatech.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 11:19:48 -0400
Message-Id: <FF204223-16E1-11D9-B04B-000A95C9112A@tucanatech.com>
To: DAWG list <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

The best practices group is also drafting a formal WG response to Dan's 
earlier query, but in the meantime a member has posted a relevant 


A useful part for our protocol discussion is:

"Two things are mentioned early. 1) A query language 2) a data access 
protocol. The DAP seems to be necessary for clients to talk to servers. 
Generally, I would keep the two unbound so that they can change 
independently as needed. There is not much discussion of the DAP, 
specifically whether it is a transport/wire protocol (like HTTP, IIOP, 
etc.) or some higher level protocol. This distinction is key. I would 
strongly recommened not to create a new wire-protocol like IIOP which 
could have a similar fate. HTTP is a best practice, in my opinion and 
should be considered as a transport protocol. Ideally, the transport 
would be extracted from a uri scheme (e.g. http://, tcp://, udp://, )."

For what it's worth, I agree that we need a HTTP based transport, 
though have no comments on what messaging format we choose (well, at 

Tom Adams                  | Tucana Technologies, Inc.
Support Engineer           |   Office: +1 703 871 5312
tom@tucanatech.com         |     Cell: +1 571 594 0847
http://www.tucanatech.com  |      Fax: +1 877 290 6687
Received on Tuesday, 5 October 2004 15:19:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:45 UTC