- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:49:40 -0500
- To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Cc: Tom Adams <tom@tucanatech.com>, DAWG list <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 02:48:12PM +0000, Seaborne, Andy wrote: > One real value of having an update language (whether that is querylanguage > or a separate language is immaterial), rather than update operations, is > the possibility of writing the changes in a document, then referring to the > document via RSS. Operations, even ones that refer to documents, don't fit > with RSS very well as they are client-push, not database-pull. This is a good point. > Indeed - maybe a way forward is to take just the HTTP+query part and > publish as a working draft as soon as possible (before XMas?) and work on > the overall architecture separately as it may be beyond this WG's timescale. I'd be willing (even if personally disappointed) to push forward my simplex draft if I thought that it had the best chance to reach WG consensus, which is what I care about more than "being finished ASAP" (no one has ever offered anything resembling a satisfactory explanation as to why this WG has acted like a house afire re: schedule). But I don't understand that that would mean dropping the abstract protocol bits entirely. Kendall Clark -- Sometimes it's appropriate, even patriotic, to be ashamed of your country. -- James Howard Kunstler
Received on Monday, 22 November 2004 15:50:39 UTC