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

Requirements and Objectives and levels of functionality?

From: Yoshio Fukushige <Fukushige.Yoshio@jp.panasonic.com>
Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 13:30:17 +0900
Message-ID: <001f01c43190$80f70320$1a48b4db@delldell>
To: "RDF Data Access Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

Hello, all.

There's one thing I don't understand well in our making UC&R.

What does the word "requirements" here mean?

Are we saying that all query languaegs confomant to our recommendation MUST
satisfy all the "requirements" here? (as with the case of the OWL UC&R?)

Or do the requirements include some of the desired features possibly
excluded from the
language (as those addressed in the Objectives section in the OWL UC&R)?

Kendall said in the message below that he wanted to move some of the items
in the
(candidate) requirements to the objectives section (if any).


I think it is a good idea to have such section.

To say further,  I think it would be useful to have 2 or 3 levels of server
functuionality and let the
application and server negotiate the appropreate level of query
(similar to but different from the Abeland and Heloise's publishing case
(3.6), where the application and the
server negotiate the language).

For example, when we have two levels of server functionality, say level 1
server doesn't support the provenance
while level 2 server does, if the application needs to get information on
the prevenance of the result,
it can search for the servers that are of level 2.

It would also facilitate the implementation to the lowe-end facilities with
relatively less computational resources,
especially when the queries are to be done through an exchange of
or to say in other words, the client and the server may change their roles.

What do you think?
Received on Tuesday, 4 May 2004 01:24:07 UTC

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