W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2004

RE: thoughts and some refs about AFS-2 UC (simplicity, minimalism )

From: Rob Shearer <Rob.Shearer@networkinference.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:31:46 -0800
Message-ID: <CFE388CECDDB1E43AB1F60136BEB4973028046@rome.ad.networkinference.com>
To: <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Cc: "RDF Data Access Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I think KC and I are actually in agreement (for
the most part).

I worry that two such deliverables are so independent that they're not
two parts of a single recommendation; they're two completely independent
recommendations. Scope, time frame, and member interest all seem very
different between the two.

It also seems that the second document (distributed architecture) is
dependent on the first (query language).

I propose that this working group work towards an initial free-standing
recommendation which addresses query language only (as always keeping
longer-term goals in mind). After delivering that recommendation, we can
work toward a network protocol and distributed querying architecture.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kendall Clark [mailto:kendall@monkeyfist.com] 
> Sent: 22 March 2004 11:21
> To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: thoughts and some refs about AFS-2 UC 
> (simplicity, minimalism )
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 10:59:32AM -0800, Rob Shearer wrote:
> > 
> > I'm very skeptical of the "two document" approach to a 
> single RDF query
> > spec. It strikes me as an artifical link between two 
> independent issues.
> > If we want to address both problems, let's let them stand 
> independently
> > and vote up or down on them independently.
> Maybe I wasn't clear? Our charter talks about a query language and a
> data access protocol. These strike me as rather orthogonal; hence,
> specifiable in separate documents, both of which would be deliverables
> of this WG. Eventually we'll have to start thinking about the
> documents this WG is going to produce, and it seems, at this very
> early date, that something like a doc for the query language and a doc
> for the data access protocol (plus some supporting docs, notably, a
> primer) seems a relatively decent starting place.
> I'm not sure I know what you mean about "two independent issues" and
> "artificial links" between them, Rob.
> Best,
> Kendall Clark
Received on Monday, 22 March 2004 14:33:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:00:24 UTC