W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2004

RE: Minutes of RDF DAWG telcon 2004-04-01 for review

From: Rob Shearer <Rob.Shearer@networkinference.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 12:16:29 -0800
Message-ID: <CFE388CECDDB1E43AB1F60136BEB497302805F@rome.ad.networkinference.com>
To: "Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

> The WG discussed forming a list of candidate requirements - both to
> accept and to reject.  The following were accepted:

This makes is sound as though the following are accepted requirements.
My understanding was that the proposed+seconded system simply helped
build the list of candidates, and acceptance or rejection will come
after discussion and possibly full votes.

s/were accepted/will be added to the list of candidates/

>   * queries with optional triples
>   * disjunction as described in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JanMar
> /0184.html
>   * queries with paths of length two or more edges
>   * should be possible for the query to indicate whether the response
>     is expected to allow for entailment from the graph or is dealing
>     with the graph as a fixed object
>   * queries expressing [arbitrary] RDF datatypes
>     PatrickS noted there will be some limit to the supported
>     dataypes, and some such as XSD ones which will have widespread
>     support.  For datatypes not supported, it could fail or could
>     send back an error, it it didn't understand it.
>     JanneS, AlbertoR: there might be a minimum set of datatypes a QL
>     should support.
>   * queries captured as a URL (bookmarkable)
>   * users can specify the format of query results
>   * query results in RDF (closure)
>   * queries written in RDF
Received on Thursday, 1 April 2004 15:17:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:00:26 UTC