- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 11:02:13 -0500
- To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 11:54, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: [...] > Andy and I were trying to balance different examples of provenance in > the BRQL spec. It seems that several people want it, but we havent > decided what *it* is or of it's a requirement. Quite; we have not. > 2004-08-23T15:13:41Z <AndyS> (where is this in UC&R?) > 2004-08-23T15:14:02Z <ericP> (SOURCE? i don't think it's there.) We have a pending objective including... "It must be possible for the query language and protocol to allow an RDF repository to expose the source from which a query server collected a triple or subgraph." http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/UseCases#d4.2 and an issue http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#i_sourceImplExp I notice the design doc says "Is this still a requirement?" -- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#i_sourceImplExp $Revision: 1.39 $ of $Date: 2004/08/24 13:35:32 $ as if it were a requirement at some point. I don't believe it ever was. Please drop the "Is this still a requirement?" bullet. The lack of a requirement only means that the design is *unconstrained* in this respect. WG members are free to propose all sorts of designs, including those that omit SOURCE altogether... though to do that would be to take a position on the pending objective too. As of our last telcon discussion[24Aug] DaveB is still the issue owner, so he owes us another proposal. That's not an exclusive lock or anything, though everybody's always welcome to propose ways to address open issues -- especially the editors. Hmm... that reminds me... I've got an action on this issue too... [24Aug] http://www.w3.org/2004/08/24-dawg-irc#T14-41-58 EricP, where are the minutes? -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 27 August 2004 16:01:45 UTC