W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2005

RE: note dissent on requirements/objectives?

From: Thompson, Bryan B. <BRYAN.B.THOMPSON@saic.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:00:40 -0400
Message-Id: <D24D16A6707B0A4B9EF084299CE99B391F67AFB1@mcl-its-exs02.mail.saic.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>


If this will make life easier, I am willing to relinquish my objection as it
was mainly
procedural.  However, I would like to note that what I believe was at issue
was the scope
of the query language specification.  I believe that we started voting on
the inclusion of
specific features (as requirements) before there was a consensus on the
scope of the spec.,
and I believe that this is an issue that still plagues Sparql.  I can see my
way to a much
simpler spec that goes out much sooner, or to a spec. that has more coverage
and that will
still take a while to bring to rec.  With the former we can still do the
latter, but right
now we are still in feature rich territory.  Extensible value testing was
the first of many
such features that have made for a more complex specification.

My appologies for being unable to make today's telcon.  I have a conflict in
a few minutes
and I did not think that it was worth while to be there for 30 minutes.


-----Original Message-----
From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Dan Connolly
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 2:49 PM
To: RDF Data Access Working Group
Subject: note dissent on requirements/objectives?

I'm researching the history of some of our decisions in
order to explain them to commentors, and I'm realizing that there is
outstanding dissent sprinkled in our meeting records that isn't easy to

The SPARQL QL spec has little red notes about a number of non-consensus
design decisions. I started to request that the requirements document do
likewise, but figured it was easier for me to just index it in the issues


Revision 1.70  2005/04/08 18:43:08  connolly
noted outstanding dissent on issues:
 - valueTesting, 3.3 Extensible Value Testing
 - SOURCE, objective 4.2 Data Integration and Aggregation
and requirements
 - subgraph results
 - result limits
 - optional match
and overall approach
 - BRQL straw-man

If anyone wants the objections noted in the requirements document too,
please say so.

Bryan, your objection of 2004-05-04 re
3.3 Extensible Value Testing seems to have been procedural, rather than
technical. If you have since been satisfied that the process is OK, please
let me/us know and I'll stop carrying that objection forward.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 12 April 2005 15:01:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:47 UTC