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

Re: Requirements and Objectives and levels of functionality?

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 07:58:48 -0500
To: Yoshio Fukushige <Fukushige.Yoshio@jp.panasonic.com>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1083675528.465.809.camel@dirk>

On Mon, 2004-05-03 at 23:30, Yoshio Fukushige wrote:
> Hello, all.
> There's one thing I don't understand well in our making UC&R.
> What does the word "requirements" here mean?

"A list of technical requirements has been extracted from the use cases,
a list that describes the critical features a standard RDF query
language and data access protocol should possess."

perhaps that should be reiterated under the "4. Requirements" heading.

> 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?)


(I prefer to think of _the_ query language conformant to our
recommendations, at least at this point. We're here to agree
on 1, yes?)

> 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).
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004AprJun/0185.html

He said "... to move the
rest of the requirements that straw-polled positively in Leiden"; not
to move some of the ones currently in UC&R.

> 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
> subqueries,
> or to say in other words, the client and the server may change their roles.
> What do you think?

I leave that to other members of the WG to discuss.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
see you at the WWW2004 in NY 17-22 May?
Received on Tuesday, 4 May 2004 08:58:42 UTC

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