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

RE: ACTION: writeup of joseki in response to action taken at last DAW G telcon.

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 08:27:41 -0500
To: "Thompson, Bryan B." <BRYAN.B.THOMPSON@saic.com>
Cc: "''public-rdf-dawg@w3.org' '" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-id: <1086096461.6686.16.camel@dirk>

On Tue, 2004-06-01 at 08:19, Thompson, Bryan B. wrote:
> 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.

I wonder if that's a good idea... requirements are there to capture
what the users require, not to make it easy to evaluate designs.

> 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.

And so...?

> Maybe we can put this on the agenda for today?

Might as well.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 1 June 2004 09:28:12 UTC

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