W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > October 2003

RE: catching up on DASL/WebDAV

From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 17:39:14 -0700
To: "Liam Quin" <liam@w3.org>
Cc: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Massimo Marchiori" <massimo@w3.org>, "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>, <www-archive@w3.org>, "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>, "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>
Message-ID: <AMEPKEBLDJJCCDEJHAMIIEHBJKAA.ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>


> I think there are two separate questions here... one is about RDF and
> one is about XML.  Although RDF can be serialized in XML, the sorts of
> queries people are doing today with RDF query languages are over the
> abstract graph, not over the XML representation.

Agreed.

> For XML documents, and resources that present themselves as XML, one
> might reasonably consider using XML Query.

XQuery certainly would be my choice for XML query language. But, even once
you've settled on XQuery, there are a number of protocol issues that would
need to be addressed. For example, can clients ask that responses not exceed
a particular size? Are query responses resources, with a URI, and how long
can that URI be dereferenced? How should query errors be passed back to the
client?

> It turns out there are lots of fairly complex things one might
> reasonably want to ask about the contents of XML Documents, so
> perhaps it's not surprising that XML Query is a rather large
> specification.  I wouldn't expect all DAV implementations to support
> it, even in XML environments.

True, although there is a growing class of DAV servers that sit on top of
XML databases, and so are interested in this capability.

> So maybe this is an area where technical experimentation is needed
> before any standardization is considered.

Never hurts. I'm seeing some experimentation among DASL implementors
already.

> We could go to the XML Query Working Group and see if there is consensus
> on any such technical work; my personal expectation is that they are too
> busy right now to focus on such issues, just because of where they are
> in their editing cycle, but that this may well change by January.

This timeframe is probably right on. I think if things got rolling early to
middle of next year, that would be fine. Inaction on this does have
opportunity costs, but they're still fairly low.

- Jim
Received on Wednesday, 8 October 2003 20:43:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:36 GMT