- From: Thompson, Bryan B. <BRYAN.B.THOMPSON@saic.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 09:19:22 -0400
- To: 'Dan Connolly ' <connolly@w3.org>, "'Thompson, Bryan B. '" <BRYAN.B.THOMPSON@saic.com>
- Cc: "''public-rdf-dawg@w3.org' '" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Dan, I think that joseki is just a poor choice for this evaluation. It is essentially a protocol, which I didn't realize when I offered to write it up. In order to match joskeki against query language requirements you need to write up the query language. My suggestion is that we refactor our requirements into protocol and query-language requirementsw and that we evaluate them seperately. We can then pick and choose combinations as candidates for DAWG. Just writing up, e.g., joseki + RDQL, is going to hide the fact that we could have just as easily bundled a completely different query language with the joseki protocol. Maybe we can put this on the agenda for today? -bryan -----Original Message----- From: Dan Connolly To: Thompson, Bryan B. Cc: 'public-rdf-dawg@w3.org' Sent: 6/1/2004 9:07 AM Subject: Re: ACTION: writeup of joseki in response to action taken at last DAW G telcon. On Tue, 2004-06-01 at 07:44, Thompson, Bryan B. wrote: [...] > j? : 3.3 Extensible Value Testing (probably if the specified query > lang. supports this.) Again, could you please pick one design (including query language) and answer 'yes' or 'no' for this requirement and the others? If you want to evaluate multiple designs (e.g. joseki with QL 1, joseki with QL 2, ...), very well; tell us 'yes' or 'no' for each one; but evaluations of partial designs like this don't help as much, I don't think. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 1 June 2004 09:19:39 UTC