W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: re-opening the DESCRIBE issue

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@richmondinformatics.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 09:28:29 +0100
Message-Id: <9B8E67F4-876F-4311-9193-99625C454207@richmondinformatics.com>
To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>


On 29 Mar 2006, at 23:06, Dan Connolly wrote:

>
> In reviewing our request for CR,
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/crq349
> there was a lot of concern about interoperability
> around DESCRIBE. TimBL took a close look at CBD
> and MSG from
> http://semanticweb.deit.univpm.it/submissions/www2005/ 
> WWW2005_signignRDF.pdf
> and looked briefly at GK's recent proposal
>  http://www.w3.org/mid/4427D376.9070504@ninebynine.org
> and concluded that this issue merits considerable further work.
> We talked about the possibility of postponing the issue
> and marking the DESCRIBE syntax "reserved for future use"
> and he was supportive of that.
>
> The issue is hereby re-opened.
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#DESCRIBE
>
> I look forward to proposals to close/postpone it. I gather Andy is
> available to discuss them only thru this Friday.

I am fully in favour of postponing it, and reserving the keyword  
(though note previous bad experiences from SQL in that direction). I  
can see that it's a useful capability, but the current level of  
underspecification makes me uneasy.

GK's proposal seems like a good idea, and more generally applicable  
that the current syntax, but I'd rather have SPARQL published soon,  
and work on DESCRIBE in the future.

- Steve
Received on Thursday, 30 March 2006 08:28:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:25 GMT