Re: twinql Retrospective motivates DESCRIBE refinement?

On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 08:33:25AM -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
> 
> Did we consider this design already?
> 
> 
> >    As I write, it occurs to me that some way to say which method is  
> > being (server -> client), or should be (client -> server), used for  
> > DESCRIBE would be desirable -- I'd like my clients to know that  
> > they're getting CBDs, or the clients might wish to ask for a certain  
> > kind of description.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Aug/0063
> 
> 
> I'm considering re-opening issues#DESCRIBE. Advice is welcome.

Is this orthogonal or related to SADDLE? I would have thought such
description (the server does *foo* when the client says DESCRIBE) would have
been a SADDLE issue, though I guess the flip side is that the client says to
the server "I want you to do *bar* when I say DESCRIBE".

Cheers, 
Kendall
--
Sad songs and waltzes aren't selling this year... --Cake