- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 20:43:05 +0200
- To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Cc: Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com>, Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@sun.com>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, public-web-http-desc@w3.org
On 6/1/05, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote: > > On Jun 1, 2005, at 7:48 AM, Leigh Dodds wrote: > > > Can I suggest that a requirement for a service description format > > ought to allow for both RDF and XML as representation formats? > > Why? The cost of supporting two completely incompatible > representation formats is high, so the corresponding benefit would > have to be high too. -Tim Leigh said 'allow', not 'support'. The cost of *allowing* non-XPath oriented formats is likely to be less than that of *supporting* XPath. On the other hand, there is likely to be a cost to excluding RDF. If there were a reasonably straightforward way of supporting the same kind of facilities the XPath approach would offer for other languages, it might well be worth considering - SQL and SPARQL spring to mind as possible targets. Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
Received on Wednesday, 1 June 2005 18:43:12 UTC