- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 17:24:54 -0500
- To: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Wed, 2004-07-07 at 07:21, Kendall Clark wrote: > Folks, > > I put together a bit of RDF (a few hundred assertions, as I recall) > representing our evaluations of initial query language and protocol > designs. Nifty... > I'll be keeping it updated as or if new evaluations come in. > > I'm having some troubles with W3's CVS, but those should be tamed > eventually -- > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/design-eval.rdf > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/design-eval.n3 I just made them world-readable... and linked them from http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/DesignEvaluations > I made up a namespace for the WG and for the UCR doc, as well as some > predicates in each namespace. Hmm... why? Why not: @prefix ucr: <http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/design-eval#>. odd... the namespace prefixes aren't used in cases like ucr:supports <http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/UseCases#r3.4>; is that because of the tool you used to produce the file? and regarding ucr:not-evaluated <http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/UseCases#d4.8> that seems better left unsaid. > Yes, there are several other ways I > could have done this RDF, including using a bag for the requirements > and design objectives, but -shrug-. I also coined a TAG URI to > identify the designs we evaluated (since I wasn't sure they all had > stable "home pages", and I don't like the "home page stands for foo" > idiom much). Hmm... Why TAG URIs? Why not fragments of design-eval, again? > Ping me or ask on-list if something is wrong or unclear. I validated > the resulting RDF but that's about all I'll warrant for these files. > > Best, > Kendall Clark -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 7 July 2004 18:24:52 UTC