- From: Rob Shearer <Rob.Shearer@networkinference.com>
- Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 11:17:19 -0800
- To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Cc: "RDF Data Access Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
> A number of us said, in our introductions to the WG, that we'd like to > get something simple done soon. Let's follow that up with use cases > that focus on the very simple conjuctive query that we all *know* > deserves W3C Recommendation status ASAP. > > My not-so-secret goal is Candidate Rec in six months. To do > that, we need to stick to functionality that we've already coded. > Twice. i.e. one or more of us has done the prototype, thrown it > away, and built it for real. I definitely agree in principle with not trying to expand our scope too much, but I absolutely don't want this group to rush a spec out the door for the sake of getting one out. One more spec (and one more query language incompatible with all the others) isn't just worthless. In-the-trenches engineers look at the huge tangle of half-useful technologies associated with the semantic web and decide it's not worth the investment. My stance is that if we can't come up with a recommendation that offers enough value for widespread adoption (and I believe that the goal is possible), then we're better off not codifying an irrelevent spec.
Received on Saturday, 20 March 2004 14:17:39 UTC