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

Re: twinql Retrospective motivates DESCRIBE refinement?

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:09:25 -0400
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20050927140925.GH2959@monkeyfist.com>

On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 09:04:06AM -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:

> My question is the same in either case: did we consider this already?

Just so I'm clear: what's the "this" that yr asking whether we considered it?

I considered whether DESCRIBE was underspecified (intentionally) and whether
we needed a way for client or server to ask or to say what it actually *did*
in processing DESCRIBE.

I decided that, in lieu of a fully worked out design, leaving it
underspecified so that people could get experience with different DESCRIBE
behaviors was a good (or, at least, acceptable) thing and one that might
lead naturally to something better in the next version.

> Does anybody think that it's new information that they would
> like to use to change or reconsider the WG's decision?

I don't see any new information there.

Sad songs and waltzes aren't selling this year... --Cake
Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2005 14:15:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:48 UTC