RE: ACTION: elaborate on 4.4

At 10:51 -0700 6/24/04, Rob Shearer wrote:
>>  Well, there seem to be only two places to put the info -- in
>>  the protocol or
>>  in the query language. If it goes into the protocol, reusing
>>  some of the
>>  mechanisms HTTP already specifies, then the Separatists claim
>>  that there's
>>  not enough separation.
>>
>>  If it goes into the query language, then the Purists claim that we're
>>  failing to reuse the existing, underly bits of web architecture.
>>
>>  Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Nice.
>
>Perhaps both groups would be happier if we actually tried to define what
>"the info" is and whether it is necessary before trying to shove it in
>either place. Because I sure don't understand it; it strikes me that
>we're trying to add a feature relevent only to a small portion of
>queries (those returning RDF) and a small portion of users (those who
>refuse to accomodate RDF/XML) for an application that is nothing more
>than an artifact of the current academic state of RDF (viewing the RDF
>without actually processing it for human consumption).


umm, by what means do you think that "those returning RDF" and "those 
refusing to accomodate RDF/XML" are small groups?  I think in the 
long run those will be the large predominance of RDF query users.  I 
don't want to argue this at the moment, just wanted to put the stake 
in the ground -- FWIW, Mind Lab participation in this group is 
largely based on our desire to query remote RDF DBs, to have those 
queries return as RDF triples or a form easily and quickly turned 
into RDF triples, and because we don't see rdf/xml as able to meet 
our needs
  sorry, just couldn't let those go unanswered
  -JH
-- 
Professor James Hendler			  http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-277-3388 (Cell)

Received on Thursday, 24 June 2004 14:18:39 UTC