W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > November 2003

Re: Semantic Web Phase 2 Activity - Protocol

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 12:04:19 -0500
To: Graham Moore <moore@ontopia.net>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-ID: <20031111170419.GN17037@w3.org>

* Graham Moore <moore@ontopia.net> [2003-11-11 15:42+0100]
> 
> 
> Given that the semantic web protocol issue has come up. I would just like to
> mention that the 'RDF Net API' has been published as a W3C member submission
> at
> 
> http://www.w3.org/Submission/2003/SUBM-rdf-netapi-20031002/
> 
> The W3C comment describes how this protocol relates to the work by Patrick
> and others in this area.
> 
> Both Andy and I would really like to have some comments and discussion about
> this submission as we really hope that it can spur on the creation and
> adoption of a semantic web protocol.

Thanks for the reminder.

My personal view is now leaning towards 'remote access' as being perhaps 
more important/relevant for REC-track work than effort on perfecting an 
RDF query language. Simple ways of plugging into remote stashes of data 
seem good. But the likelihood of people opening up general public-access 
Query facilities for anyone/everyone to send queries to is, I suspect, 
pretty low. So a low-powered query approach has value here. Talking with 
Guha about TAP a couple years ago, he stressed the point that even now 
we have SQL, JDBC etc., very few such services are publically exposed in 
the Web. Do we have reason to suppose things would be so different if 
we had a fancy new RDF Query language? I'm suspecting not...

cheers,

Dan
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2003 12:04:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:03 GMT