SPARQL: which features now, which features later for RDF Data Access?

Thanks for all the careful review and comments on the SPARQL
drafts, everybody. But several of them are more about
requirements than design... we should add this feature because
it's really important... or drop that one because our design
isn't cooked and we should try again later. So before we claim
victory (i.e last call) on the design, we'd like to get another round
of comments on the use cases and requirements...



RDF Data Access Use Cases and Requirements
W3C Working Draft 25 March 2005
        http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-rdf-dawg-uc-20050325/ 

Status of This Document
Since the October 2004 draft of this document, the RDF Data Access
Working Group has

      * adopted a WSDL requirement and a sorting objective (see change
        log for details)
      * postponed some design issues to a future version due to lack of
        implementation and design experience (cascadedQueries,
        accessingCollections)
      * changed our approach to the Human-friendly Syntax objective (see
        issue punctuationSyntax and upcoming design document revisions) 

We invite feedback on which features are required for a first version of
SPARQL and which should be postponed in order to expedite deployment of
others. Please send comments to public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org, a
mailing list with a public archive.

This document has been produced by the RDF Data Access Working Group,
along with three design documents: SPARQL Query Language for RDF, SPARQL
Protocol for RDF, and SPARQL Variable Binding Results XML Format. This
work is part of the Semantic Web Activity in the W3C Technology &
Society Domain.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Friday, 25 March 2005 23:20:17 UTC