- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 17:25:37 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>
- Cc: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
> Please drop the "Is this still a requirement?" > bullet. Done. -------- Original Message -------- > From: Dan Connolly <mailto:connolly@w3.org> > Date: 27 August 2004 17:02 > > 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 16:26:05 UTC