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

Re: requirement: rdfs query (for lack of a better name...)

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 18:30:28 -0400
To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040506223028.GJ12831@monkeyfist.com>

On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 08:19:28PM +0100, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> Kendall,
> I don't see this as needing to go in the candidate requirements.  It doesn't
> seem to be a top level requirement to me.  Maybe I was just assuming it
> would happen.

I don't care about it going into the list of reqs as an end in
itself. I only care because that seems the only way to ensure that it
*gets done*.

Which is to say that I was not assuming it would happen otherwise. 

Plus, if I don't offer requirements, it seems I put myself, my
institution,  and my AC in a worse position vis-a-vis formal
objections than if I do.

I'm finding that being editor *and* arguing for requirements is
significantly burdensome. In fact, I was kinda hoping that since I
help *everyone* polish their requirements, that I might get some
reciprocation from other members of this WG. After all, I never
consult my own position before helping people craft language, even for
requirements I think mad. (But maybe this is editor special pleading
and in bad taste, in which case: my apologies! :>)

> I see the requirements list as the the most important ones.  Was there a
> reason behind wanting it in the list that means it is significant enough?

Well, I think it's important; I think, per Charter 1.8, that it's in
scope, and I think that if it's not on the list explicitly, it may not
get done.

Not sure what else there is to say, other than that you hit spot on
the use cases I had in mind in yr reply to Steve. (Our photo
annotation tool would benefit greatly; it asks its server for
instances of foaf:Person and instances of the subclasses of
foaf:Person. Doing that in a clean, concise and standardized way is a
big win, IMO.)

Received on Thursday, 6 May 2004 18:31:31 UTC

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