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

RE: extensibility

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 16:06:23 +0100
Message-ID: <E864E95CB35C1C46B72FEA0626A2E80803615AF4@0-mail-br1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org


The extensibility mechanism is by naming a feature set in the query.  I
think having named sets of features is a good idea, rather than always
having just a feature-by-feature naming.  It might be useful to be able to
enquire of a query processor what feature sets it supports.

There seem to be two usages:

1/ Want to ensure a number of queries can be executed, the early ones may
not need a given extension so the app wants to knowion advance it wil be OK.
To do this, it needs to ask before a query is submitted.

2/ In any given query, it is only the fetaures actually used that matter,
not the whole set (if named).  In this case, can't the query processor
detemine which features are needed simply by parsing the request?  If so,
then there is some neatness in declaring features but it isn't necessary is
it?  Or do required features modify the query/results in some way?


-------- Original Message --------
> From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <>
> Date: 21 June 2004 08:59
> I've done a bunch of thinking over the weekend about extensibility and
> how it interacts with streamability. I've prototyped a solution in
> algae. 
> Take a peek at the Algae doc on profiles and extensibility [1] and an
> extension (implemented, but poorly documented at this point) on adding
> rules to query [2]. It uses and demonstrates the extensibility
> mechanism. 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2004/05/06-Algae/#extensibility
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2004/06/20-rules/
Received on Monday, 21 June 2004 11:07:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:00:27 UTC