- From: NMP-MSW/Tampere <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 12:26:24 +0200
- To: "ext Wagner, G.R." <G.R.Wagner@tm.tue.nl>
- Cc: <www-rdf-rules@w3.org>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
I would not be opposed to seeing the scope of the RDF Query WG limited to pull behavior. With a separate WG initiated later (or even in parallel, with close cooperation) to address push and related knowlege management and syndication issues. Though, it also can be argued that perhaps it's the name of the WG that should be changed, and not a change in focus that excludes push behavior. Either way, I think it's important for the first round of standardization to focus on pull behavior, and get that deployed ASAP, regardless of whether the additional work is done by the same WG or another. Patrick On Tuesday, Nov 18, 2003, at 12:04 Europe/Helsinki, ext Wagner, G.R. wrote: >> The first distinction is between discovery versus submission. I.e. >> between pull versus push. > > We should not follow the abuse of language that has arisen > from subsuming three sublanguages (a schema definition > language, a data manipulation/change language, and a query > language) under the "query language" SQL. Not everything > is a query! E.g., in some DBMS products, such as Microsoft > Access, a CREATE TABLE statement is called a "data definition > query", which sounds very funny. > > Clearly, what you refer to by "push" are not (data retrieval) > queries in the propor sense, but change operations/requests, > so they should not be covered in the RDF query WG. > > -Gerd > > --------------------------------------- > Gerd Wagner > http://tmitwww.tm.tue.nl/staff/gwagner/ > Dep. Information & Technology > Eindhoven University of Technology > Email: G.Wagner@tm.tue.nl > Phone: (+31 40) 247 26 17 > Fax: (+31 40) 247 26 12 > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 18 November 2003 05:28:44 UTC