Re: PS-17: Opacity of Content Management Infrastructure

this UC seems to express some of the ideas/requirements of AR-2 in less 
technical terms - good!

even though I find the usage of "Content Management" in the title a bit 
misleading - I guess most people out there they use the term CMS 
talking about a system offering either PULL and PUSH functionality 
(e.g. most DBMS existing today). Where the latter seems out of scope 
from our DAWG charter -  
http://www.w3.org/2003/12/swa/dawg-charter#update

cheers

Alberto

On Mar 19, 2004, at 8:52 AM, Patrick Stickler wrote:

>
>
> A knowledge provider maintains descriptions about a large number
> of resources, and manages those descriptions in a distributed
> manner, such that the sum total knowledge known about a given
> resource may be expressed and managed in several distinct
> documents, which may be independently retrieved by GET.
>
> A client submits a query/request for a description of a resource
> from the knowledge provider, and in response is provided a
> complete description of that resource which in no way reflects
> the internal, distributed, fragmented content management
> infrastructure employed by the knowledge provider.
>
> --
>
> I.e. clients shouldn't have to know about specific RDF/XML instances,
> models, databases, stores, records, or how they are organized,
> partitioned, or where located, etc. in order to submit a query of
> any kind per the DAWG recommendation.
>
> Queries should be completely agnostic to all aspects of storage
> and management of the knowledge in question.
>
> If a knowledge provider wishes to provide explicit access to
> a specific body of knowledge as expressed in a specific, single
> RDF/XML instance, fine, but that is an implementational detail
> of which the client should remain totally ignorant insofar as
> the machinery specified by the DAWG recommendation is concerned.
>
> --
>
> Patrick Stickler
> Nokia, Finland
> patrick.stickler@nokia.com