Re: RDF Query -- possible WG charter draft for discussion

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com> writes:

> On 2003-11-10 13:32, "ext jo walsh" <jo@abduction.org> wrote:
>
>> 
>> 
>> hello,
>> 
>>> Here are a few requirements that I would expect to see spelled out
>>> explicitly in the charter, which were not so in the draft:
>>> 2. All implementations must support at least all of the pre-defined XML
>>>    Schema simple datatypes.
>>> 
>>> 3. Query results should be, by default, returned as RDF/XML, even if other
>>>    forms of representation are made available by particular implementations.
>> 
>> forgive any obvious stupidity from someone not deeply involved in the
>> process but i don't see the connection, utility or necessity that puts
>> these two 'requirements' at the start of an RDF query/rule language
>> standard effort. i feel wary of tight coupling to XML concepts in this
>> domain... 
>> 
>> that doesn't even amount to 2cents does it :/...
>
>
> I could see #2 being lessened to strong consideration and recommendation
> for implementations, rather than a hard requirement.
>

I see #2 being a concern given my experience of the strongly typed
XPath 2.0/XSLT 2.0/XQuery versus the weakly typed XPath 1.0/XSLT
1.0. I certainly prefer your weakened revision, and agree datatypes
need to be mentioned in the charter.

Damian Steer

PS maybe Jo + Me = 2cents :-)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (Darwin)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>

iD8DBQE/r5wJAyLCB+mTtykRAueRAJ9o6GXS+x9WEaOpBUn96yYhnI+YyQCfWPMC
8DTp82vQVIugz1JeZIeZY/U=
=NW5a
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Monday, 10 November 2003 09:09:01 UTC