- From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 17:15:52 +0100
- To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 11:07:19 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: > > In our discussion of the sort issue today, I was kinda > interested to try to move the "give me the answer in slices" > functionality to the protocol, but this evening I remembered... > > "2.3 Cursors and proofs > > Some languages, for instance, OQL, define a layer of protocol that > handles requester/server interactions for result set cursors or proofs. > The abstract syntax may be extensible to express the relevant > parameters, but their definition and effects are beyond the scope of > this working group." > > http://www.w3.org/2003/12/swa/dawg-charter#protocol > > If I sorta disregard "proof" in that section, it seems to say > that cursors are out of scope, and the sort of protocol > cookie/tokens that came to my mind when we discussed moving > OFFSET/LIMIT to the protocol seem to be an awful lot like > cursors. Well, that is pretty much the distinction, cursors are API (protocol equivalent I guess, though sometimes thier passed in the same channel, thier not queries AFAIK) and LIMIT+OFFSET are in the QL. That said, I'd still prefer not to have sorting, and LIMIT+OFFSET are not practical without sorting. - Steve
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2005 16:15:56 UTC