- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 11:30:26 -0500
- To: Yoshio Fukushige <Fukushige.Yoshio@jp.panasonic.com>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 11:13, Yoshio Fukushige wrote: > Hello, all > > I want to know what you think we should do with the design objectives. > > Are we going to standardize the protocols for optional functionalities > listed in the design objectives section, > or jest leave them to the developers? I understand an objective to be something like a goal; i.e. the WG would like to get it done, but the WG is prepared to declare victory even if we haven't done it. > In the latter case, there could be varieties of them designed by different > developers. > Are we happy with that? > > I think there are two types of optional functionalities: > (1) those would require too much time to make standards for > (2) those relatively easy to make standards for, but not suitable to force > all implementations to support > > I propose for us to write the standard protocols for those of type (2) > above, and mark them "OPTIONAL." Optional protocol elements work against interoperability, so I would like to see more motivation. Do you have any particular topics in mind for optional protocols? Is this proposal directed at the use cases & requirements document? If so, could you be more specific about wording? > I know if we introduce levels of implementation, we need some protocol for > negotiating the conversation level > between the server and the client, but I think we need it at the end of the > day (cf. UC 2.6) > > What do you say? > > # I wanted to discuss it in the telecon, but there was not enough time... > > Best regards, > Yoshio -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ see you at the WWW2004 in NY 15-21 May?
Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2004 12:30:20 UTC