RE: Requirement: queries written as RDF

> On Sun, Apr 04, 2004 at 09:23:14AM -0700, Howard Katz wrote:

   [snip ...]

> > I certainly agree with the sentiments of the second, "human readable"
> > requirement. Interestingly enough, the third, "XML" requirement
> has been the
> > one that's caused the group the most difficulty to my
> knowledge, and at the
> > moment conformance with this requirement has been downgraded to
> optional. I
> > don't know what the major issues have been, but it might be
> interesting to
> > know, if only for the sake of curiosity.
> Can we go beyond the meta-lesson of "that may be hard. it's been hard
> in XQuery" to some of the particular problems that requirement caused
> the XQuery WG? Also, was this requirement born of some compelling use
> cases, or a general notion that it's good practice to express anything
> in XML?

I wasn't trying to impart a particular lesson. My intention, not knowing
what DAWG members know or don't know about it, was simply to provide data on
the experience of the Query wg in the event that might prove useful to the
group. In response to your questions, I've asked several members of the wg
about their XQueryX experience. If they see fit to pass that on to me, I'll
be happy to share it with the group.


Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2004 12:23:25 UTC