- 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>
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?) Yes. (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)? no. > 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