- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:38:33 +0200
- To: "ext Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Mar 19, 2004, at 17:16, ext Dan Connolly wrote: > My not-so-secret goal is Candidate Rec in six months. I'm very sympathetic to such a goal, though I hope that won't result in too rushed a rec which misses key issues. > 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. > > We have time to figure out what to do with the arbitrary > differences between the implementations we've got (i.e. one > implementation uses a comma where another used a period; one > supports integer add and one does float) I'm expecting that the DAWG rec solution will not employ built-in datatypes (even if it recommends support for XML Schema predefined datatypes) and will support RDF's datatype framework agnostic model. I.e., if I can't express datatype values as typed literals with arbitrary datatypes, then that is not acceptable. I hope that this is a widely shared position in the WG. > and > to spell-check our spec, set up a test harness, and that's > about it. I think that the WG actually has a bit more work to do than just repackage some existing legacy solutions as-is. Yes, most of the work has been done, and we should avoid venturing into any truly new areas, but I don't think we have absolutely all of the pieces in the form we need them in a single existing deployed solution to make the WG's activities primarily editorial. Three particular issues that I hope/expect the WG will explore, and ultimately incorporate into the final rec are (a) expressing queries and query results in RDF (b) a standard definition of a concise bounded description of a resource (c) a standardized means to request the concise bounded description of a specific resource > > Provenance doesn't look like a requirement to me. > Of course I think it's interesting and key to the future. > I spend a lot of time researching it and doing advanced > development with it. But it doesn't looke like part > of the so-called "minimum required to declare victory." I agree that provenance should be out of scope for this round. Cheers, Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Nokia, Finland patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Monday, 22 March 2004 04:38:55 UTC