- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 13:21:57 -0500
- To: Rob Shearer <Rob.Shearer@networkinference.com>, Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 11:01:36AM -0700, Rob Shearer muttered something about: > If the WG wishes to define a network protocol, then I guess that's fine. We are *chartered* to do such a thing; by a reasonable reading of our charter, we *have* to do such a thing. I read it as positive a obligation. > But we should be under no delusions that everybody will actually want to > use it, and I do think it's quite silly to bind the process of defining > a query language to that independent process. Two things: 1. Where is your "we can't impose this on others" reticence when it comes to the query language? You seem to have no qualms about telling *existing* communities that their query languages should be thrown away in favor of *ours*; and, oh, by the way, we don't support features A, B, and C that you really care about. 2. This is in reality a very silly debate. Why? Because as soon as someone puts a DAWG processor into an Apache mod, for example, the game is over. Accept: already lets you do content negotiation for resource representations. There already are lots of different representations for "RDF graphs". Making URIs that identify resources which are dynamically built from DAWG queries will be the 2nd or 3rd thing I do with DAWG software. It's so insanely obviously and inevitable it's not worth discussing. The next thing I will do is to use ordinary HTTP content negotiation to tell the origin server about my preferred types of representation for these resources. But it will happen far cleanly, reliably, and sanely if we do a bit of actual standardization work here. Kendall Clark -- You're one in a million You've got to burn to shine
Received on Thursday, 24 June 2004 14:21:58 UTC